CC SR 20170620 03 - 5375 Rollingridge Road AppealCITY OF
Date: June 20, 2017
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC HEARING
Subject: Consideration and Possible Action to Consider an Appeal of the Planning
Commission's Approval of a Grading Permit and Site Plan Review for the
Demolition of an Existing Residence and Construction of a new 7,199
square foot split level residence at 5375 Rolling Ridge Road (Case No.
ZON2016-00176)
Subject Property: 5375 Rolling Ridge Road
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Campbell
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Associate Planner Silva
4. Council Questions of Staff (factual only, no opinions):
5. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Campbell
6. Public Testimony: Mayor Campbell invites brief comments from the public.
Appellant: N/A
Applicant: N/A
7. Council Questions of speakers — (factual only):
8. Rebuttal: N/A
9. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Campbell
10. Council Deliberation: Questions of staff in response to testimony and deliberation.
11. Council Action:
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: 06/20/2017
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's
approval of a Grading Permit and Site Plan Review for the demolition of an existing
residence and construction of a new 7,199 -square -foot split-level residence at 5375
Rolling Ridge Road (Case No. ZON2016-00176).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2017-_; upholding the Planning Commission's approval of
a Grading Permit and Site Plan Review for the demolition of an existing
residence and construction of a new, 7,199 -square -foot split-level residence with
a modification to Condition of Approval No. 29 as it relates to foliage trimming
and maintenance at 5375 Rolling Ridge Road (Case No. ZON2016-00176).
FISCAL IMPACT: Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.80.120, if the City Council modifies
the Conditions of Approval adopted by the Planning Commission, the Appellants would
be entitled to a refund of half ($1,137.50) of the $2,275.00 Appeal Fee.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Octavio Silva, Associate Planner I's -
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development°
APPROVED BY: Doug Wilmore, City Manager U e
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 2017- (page A-1)
B. Appeal Letter (page B-1)
C. Public Comment (page C-1)
D. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-12 (page D-1)
E. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated April 11, 2017 (page E-1)
F. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, Dated April 11, 2017 (page F-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On April 11, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017-12
(Attachment D), conditionally approving a Grading Permit and Site Plan Review to allow
the Applicants (Olmos) to demolish an existing single-family residence to accommodate
the construction of a new 7,199 -square -foot split-level single-family residence with
1
1,887 cubic yards of associated grading at 5375 Rolling Ridge Road (the "Property"). A
detailed background summary and site and project descriptions are included in the April
11, 2017, Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment E). During the public hearing,
neighbors located upslope from the project site on Bayridge Road expressed concerns
regarding the project's compatibility with the neighborhood, structure size, bulk and
mass, and privacy. After considering public testimony from the Applicants, the
neighbors and Staff, the Planning Commission concluded that the required findings for
approval of the project could be made. A copy of the meeting minutes (Attachment F)
are attached to this report, which describe the concerns raised by neighboring property
owners regarding the proposed project.
On April 26, 2017, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's approval was filed by
the Appellant (Semelkas), the abutting neighbors immediately upslope of the Property,
located at 5329 Bayridge Road (Attachment B). The written appeal filed by the
Appellants focuses on the following two specific aspects of the Planning Commission -
approved project:
1. Amend Condition No. 29 to include language restricting the height of existing
and proposed foliage to protect views from upslope properties.
The Planning Commission -approved Condition of Approval No. 29 requires the
Applicant to submit landscape plans to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any
Grading or Building Permits for the construction of the proposed residence. This
Condition does not include language that restricts the height of existing and proposed
foliage to preserve views from neighboring properties. This is because at the time the
project application was processed, views were not impaired by existing foliage. In order
to ensure the future protection of views, the Appellants are requesting that Condition
No. 29 be amended to include language from the View Ordinance that limits the height
of existing and future foliage to 16' or the roofline height, whichever is lower, with the
exception of three trees.
In response to the appeal, Staff has worked with both the Appellants and the Applicants
to come up with condition language that satisfies both parties' concerns. As a result,
both parties have reviewed and accepted the following Staff -recommended amended
language to Condition No. 29 (proposed language shown in bold/underline text):
29. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, the applicant shall submit
complete Landscape Plans to the Planning Division for review and approval by the
Director of Community Development ensuring that the graded slopes are
landscaped and retaining walls screened with landscaping. The Landscape Plan
shall call out existing and proposed foliage and shall notate the common
species name and the expected height at maturity. The final approved
landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
for the residence. Said plans may be required to comply with State of California
Water Efficient Landscape requirements.
2
The Landscape Plan shall call out the three existing trees within the front
yard of the property that are to be maintained annually to a height of 20', as
measured from the base of the tree trunk. The Landscape Plan shall also
include a notation that any other existing and proposed foliage, excluding
the three aforementioned trees, which grows to significantly impair a view
from a viewing area, as defined in RPVMC Section 17.02.040 or the Palos
Verdes Golf Course property, be trimmed by the property owner to a height
level of 16', as measured from the base of the tree trunk, for the foliage which
is located within the rear yard of the property, and to the ridgeline height
(114.5') for the foliage that is located in the front and side yards of the
property. The heights of all existing and proposed foliage shall be
maintained on an annual basis during the month of June.
It is important to note that the proposed language has been customized to memorialize
an agreement between the Appellants and the Applicants. Trimming exceptions and
the maintenance requirements, as well as view protection of the Palos Verdes Golf
Course property, are specific to the agreement between the two parties and is not
typically applied to projects. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the amended
condition and the proposed trimming requirements will be enforced by the City's Code
Enforcement Division on an annual basis. City Staff recommends that the City Council
adopt the amended Condition No. 29.
2. Restrict the height of roof -mounted solar panels on the Applicant's Property.
Solar panels, as part of the renewable energy initiative, are regulated by the State, as
well as the City. RPVMC Section 15.04.070 currently restricts roof -mounted solar
panels from exceeding the maximum building height. In light of this, the Appellants
have withdrawn this aspect of the appeal and are no longer seeking an amendment to
the Planning Commission -adopted Conditions of Approval regarding this issue.
Based on the discussion above, Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the
Planning Commission -approved project with a modification to the language of Condition
No. 29.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Quasi -Judicial Appeal Review
Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.80.070(F) (De Novo Review), the City Council appeal
hearing is not limited to consideration of the materials presented to the Planning
Commission. Any matter or evidence relating to the action on the application,
regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed by the City Council at the
appeal hearing.
9
Puhlic Notice
On June 1, 2017, a public notice was mailed to owners of property within a 500 -foot
radius of the subject site and published in the Peninsula News. Staff has received one
public comment in response to the public notice as described below.
Public Comments
Staff received one item of public correspondence in response to the public notice
(Attachment C). This correspondence requests that the Conditions of Approval be
amended to require the roof of the Olmos' residence to be painted in a terra cotta color
and to restrict the installation of hardware or mechanical equipment on the roof.
Condition of Approval No. 28 already requires the roof to be a terra cotta color and
RPVMC Section 17.56.050 already prohibits mechanical units on the roof of residential
properties.
Appeal Fees
Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.80.120, if the City Council modifies the Conditions of
Approval adopted by the Planning Commission, the Appellants would be entitled to a
refund of half ($1,137.50) of the $2,275.00 Appeal Fee.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council's consideration:
1. Modify the Appeal and direct Staff to return to the City Council with a
revised Resolution at the July 18, 2017, City Council Meeting.
2. Deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval without
modifying any of the Conditions of Approval.
3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff
and/or the Applicants with direction in modifying the project, and continue
the public hearing to a date certain.
11
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A GRADING PERMIT
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN
EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
7,199 -SQUARE -FOOT SPLIT-LEVEL RESIDENCE WITH A
MODIFICATION TO CONDITION NO. 29, AS IT RELATES
TO FOLIAGE TRIMMING AND MAINTENANCE AT 5375
ROLLING RIDGE ROAD (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176).
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2016, the applicant submitted a Height Variation, Grading
Permit, Minor Exception Permit and Site Plan Review with Neighborhood Compatibility
application for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new 7,199 -
square -foot (attached and detached garage included), split-level residence with 1,887
cubic yards of associated grading. After reviewing the project scope, Staff determined
that the proposed project only required approval of a Grading Permit and Site Plan
Review; and,
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2016, Staff completed the initial review of the application,
at which time it was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans.
The applicant submitted revisions on September 23, 2016, December 12, 2016, January
17, 2017, February 14, 2017, and March 9, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2017, the application was deemed complete for
processing; and,
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted P.0 Resolution
No. 2017-12, conditionally approving a Grading Permit and Site Plan Review to allow for
the demolition of an existing 5,356 -square -foot single-family residence to accommodate
the construction of a new 7,199 -square -foot (attached and detached garage included)
split-level single-family residence, with related site improvements and 1,887 cubic yards
of associated grading and issued a Notice of Decision (Case No. ZON2016-00176); and,
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2017, a timely appeal was filed by Frank and Susan
Semelka, the property owners of the abutting southerly property at 5329 Bayridge Road,
requesting that Condition of Approval No. 29 be modified with respect to foliage trimming
and maintenance on the property, as well as to limit the height of roof -mounted solar
equipment on the property; and,
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2017, the Appellants withdrew the part of their appeal
request related to restricting the height of roof -mounted solar equipment on the property;
and,
A-1
WHEREAS, the Appellants, Applicants, and City Staff worked collaboratively and
came to an agreement with modified language for Condition of Approval No. 29; and,
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2017, a public notice was mailed to 73 property owners
within a 500 foot radius of the property and published in the Peninsula News providing a
15 -day public comment period; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section 15303(a)
(New Construction) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA.
Specifically, the project proposes to demolish an existing 5,356 -square -foot single-family
residence to accommodate the construction of a new 7,199 -square -foot (attached and
detached garage included), split-level, single-family residence with 1,887 cubic yards of
associated grading, which allows for the construction of single-family residences; and,
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2017, the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing,
at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the
application for a Grading Permit to demolish and existing residence and construct a new
7,199 -square -foot (attached and detached garage included), split-level residence, along
with 1,889 cubic yards of associated grading consisting of 393 cubic yards of cut and 948
cubic yard of fill including 9 cubic yards of import:
A. The proposed grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot, as the proposed project is in a RS -2 Zoning District, in which
the primary use of the lot is residential. The proposed grading would accommodate
the construction of a new split-level residential structure with an attached and
detached garage, as well as ancillary site improvements including patio areas, a
new driveway and a wider private road per Fire Department requirements.
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 as the applicant is proposing cut under the majority of the
residence in order to notch the structure into the existing slope. Easterly portions
of the residence (media room), detached garage and driveway do include
approximately 3'-0" to 8'-8" of fill under these areas to raise the grades and support
the improvements. After conducting site visits and a review of oblique aerial
photographs of the area, Staff found that the fill portions of the proposed residence
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 2 of 14
A-2
and detached garage do not significantly impair the views of the ocean, shoreline,
Los Angeles Basin and city lights as observed from adjacent properties to the
south, east and west of the property. More specifically, it was found that properties
to the south, along Bayridge Road are approximately 45-0" above the property,
whereby views are above the roofline of the proposed residence and detached
garage. With regards to the adjacent properties to the east and west of the project
site on Rollingridge Road, views are not impacted by the fill portions of the
proposed residence or detached garage as the proposed. Views will not be
impacted from these properties as fill portions of the residence and detached
garage on the project site will be located along the easterly property line, where
views from 5335 and 5383 Rollingridge Road are oriented in the opposite direction
towards the rear of the property and away from the fill areas on the project site.
Furthermore, the view of the "Bird of Paradise" residence from properties located
on Bayridge Road, caused by the fill of the eastern portion of the residence or
detached garage is not a protected view, as the City's View Ordinance does not
protect a view of other homes in the City and as the City's General Plan does not
identify the "Bird of Paradise" residence as a significant manmade landmark.
C. The proposed grading of the natural contour lines and the finished contours are
reasonably natural. As proposed, the project grading would be limited to areas of
the property that have been previously graded, as part of the construction of the
existing home. In addition, applicant proposes to maintain a majority of the natural
slopes that surround the property, with the exception of minimal grading along the
southerly property line in order to expand the width of the private road with a new
retaining wall that ranges in height from 2'-0" to 3'-7'/2". Furthermore, the grading
surrounding the rear yard is designed to blend with the existing contours and the
finished contours are reasonably natural in this area.
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features as
the proposed grading is primarily limited to the areas of the lot that were previously
graded for the construction of the existing home. Moreover, the proposed grading
generally follows the existing slope of the property, results in finished slopes that
appear reasonably natural and the proposed land -sculpturing that is to occur,
along the rear yard slope and driveway will be designed so as to blend the
manufactured slopes into the natural topography. Furthermore, prior to issuing the
Certificate of Occupancy, a condition requires the approval of a landscape plan
and the installation of plantings to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director, which will aid in stabilizing the graded slope and will also contribute
towards blending the manufactured slope into the natural topography.
E. The proposed grading and the proposed new single-family residence is compatible
with the immediate neighborhood character as the grading is to accommodate a
residence and on-site improvements which are consistent with homes found in the
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 3 of 14
A-3
immediate area and the proposed home is compatible with the neighborhood.
More specifically, after the completion of a Neighborhood Analysis the City Council
finds that the proposed residence, detached garage and associated grading are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood with respect to scale, architectural
style, and setbacks. With regards to building size and scale, the residence will be
larger than the average size of residences in the immediate area, however it will
not be the largest home in the neighborhood, as there is one residence within the
immediate area that is larger than the proposed residence. Furthermore, the
proposed residence is designed in a manner, so as to maintain the streetscape of
the neighborhood by being notched into the existing slope and maintaining a
single -story configuration, as seen from the private road. With respect to the
project's compatibility with architectural style and materials in the area, the project
proposes a residence that is in line with the estate -like neighborhood character
and incorporates fagade treatments, roof design, and building materials that are
consistent with the custom homes within the immediate area. To address
incompatibility concerns with the roof design and roofing materials of the proposed
project, the project has been conditioned to require the use of "earth -tone" roofing
finishes and to specifically prohibit the use of white or other reflective finishes on
the roof of the proposed residence. In addition, the proposed residence is
compatible with homes in the neighborhood with respect to height as there are
seventeen two-story residences in the immediate area. In terms of the project's
compatibility with lot coverage conditions in the area, the proposed project
complies with the maximum lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning district (40%), as the
project proposes lot coverage of 38.28%. Furthermore, a field survey of the
surrounding neighborhood revealed that many of the residential properties in the
immediate neighborhood are at or near the same lot coverage as the property.
F. The proposed grading does not involve a new residential tract or modifications to
streets or other public infrastructure, as all proposed grading activities will be
conducted within the existing property. Furthermore, the proposed grading does
not impact natural landscape or wildlife habitat, as an analysis determined that the
property is not within an environmentally sensitive area and does not contain any
sensitive species. The property is located within an existing residential tract and is
zoned for the development of a single-family residence.
G. The proposed grading conforms to the City's grading standards with regards to
grading on extreme slopes (35% or greater), as the residence and grading will be
constructed on a lot that was created prior to November 25, 1975, is zoned RS -2
(single-family residential) and will not threaten public health, safety or welfare. In
addition, the grading does not create any slopes greater than 35%, and the project
does not propose any fill or cut on a slope that exceeds 50% gradient. As
proposed, the height of retaining walls for one (1) of the seven (7) proposed
retaining walls conform to the City's grading standards. Lastly, the project
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 4 of 14
MA
proposes to construct a new driveway that has a slope which does not exceed
20%.
H. The proposed project includes both cut and fill in order to accommodate the
proposed residence on the existing lot. With regards to cut, the project proposes
the deepest cut of 8'-6" along the easterly portion of the residence in order to
remove an existing, elevated landscape planter, which appears to be the result of
previous grading on the lot. The removal of the elevated landscape planter is
reasonable and necessary in order to further notch or recess the proposed
residence into the slope. In terms of the proposed fill, the project proposes the
deepest fill of 8'-8" along the easterly side property, in the vicinity of the proposed
detached garage and patio area. The proposed fill in this area is also a result of
previous grading and is intended to accommodate the improvements and to
provide improved vehicle accessibility to the residence and garage areas as
required for emergency vehicles.
Although six (6) of the proposed retaining walls exceed the height standard for
retaining walls, the City Council finds that the proposed walls are consistent with
the purpose of Municipal Code section 17.76.040 and is a reasonable development
of the land and such walls are typically found throughout the neighborhood due to
the existing sloping topography. More specifically, the proposed retaining walls will
provide for an improved and expanded roadway, greater accessibility around the
perimeter of the residence and support structures and improvements such as the
detached garage, patio areas and pool/spa. The proposed walls will not be
detrimental to the public safety, nor to another property, as the City's geotechnical
consultant has reviewed and conditionally approved the proposed project, and
further review will be required to approve a soil engineering report for the grading
and retaining wall prior to building or grading permit issuance. Furthermore, the
City, prior to issuance of building permits, requires that the structure and all
retaining walls be engineered to meet the requirements of the building code.
J. 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 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. A copy of the Notice of
Decision and associated conditions of approval will be sent to the following
adjacent property owners: 1) William I. Bronstein / 3470 Via Campesina, 2)
Barbara J. Sonne / 3466 Via Campesina, 3) Richard & Barbara Johnson / 5383
Rollingridge Road, 4) Douglas Trowbridge /5333 Rollingridge Road, 5) Ralph B.
Allman / 5335 Rollingridge Road, 6) Mingho Chen / 5325 Bayridge Road 7) Frank
J. & Macshara Susan Semelka /5329 Bayridge Road, 8) Cheng Chung & Helena
Shen /5337 Bayridge Road, 9) Steve Shiang /5345 Bayridge Road, and 10)
George J. & Susan F. Kettel / 5351 Bayridge Road.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 5 of 14
M
Section 2: The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the
application for a Site Plan Review to demolish and existing residence and construct a
new 7,199 -square -foot (attached and detached garage included), split-level residence.
A. The proposed residence and related improvements comply with development
standards established for the RS -2 zoning district for lots created prior to the City's
incorporation. More specifically, the project proposes a 38.28% lot coverage, which
is below the maximum 40% lot coverage allowed for an RS -2 zoned property. In
addition, the detached garage conforms to setback requirements in the RS -2 zone,
as the detached garage provides a 5-0" setback to the easterly side property line,
a 79'-0" setback to the rear property line, and a 25'-0" setback to the front property
line. In addition, the proposed pool and spa conform to RS -2 setbacks as the pool
provides a 56'-0" westerly side yard setback, a 125'-0" easterly side yard setback
and a 23'-0" setback to the rear property line, as does the pool equipment. Lastly,
the height of the proposed detached garage will be 16'-0", as measured from the
lowest preconstruction grade adjacent to the foundation wall (93.86') to the ridge
(elev.109.86'). The height of the proposed detached garage may be increased up
to 16'-0" in height in that the City Council finds that the detached garage will have
no significant impact on view from adjacent properties based on a site assessment.
More specifically, the Commission finds that the homes along Bayridge Road are
located at the top of an ascending slope, approximately 45'-0" above the property,
whereby the neighboring views are above the roofline of the proposed detached
garage. Furthermore, the view of neighboring properties at 5383 and 5335
Rollingridge Road are not impacted as these properties enjoy a view of the ocean,
shoreline, and Los Angeles basin, as observed from the rear of their residences.
Views from these properties are not impacted by the proposed detached garage
as the proposed detached garage would be constructed towards the front and side
of the property, where views of the ocean and city lights are not observed.
Section 3: The Appellant submitted a letter on April 26, 2017, appealing the
Planning Commission's approval of the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review in order to
restrict the height of existing and proposed foliage, as well as the height of roof -mounted
equipment on the property. After submittal of the appeal, the Appellant and the Applicant
came to an agreement on modified language for Condition of Approval No. 29 to include
trimming exceptions, and maintenance requirements, as well as view protection of the
Palos Verdes Golf Course property, which are specific to the agreement between the two
parties and are not typically applied to other projects. In addition, the Appellants withdrew
the request to restrict the height of roof -mounted equipment on the property, as height
limitations on such equipment are regulated by State requirements and the RPVMC. The
City Council finds that the Appellant's grounds for appeal is partially warranted as both
the Appellants and the Applicants accept modifications to Condition No. 29 as described
in Exhibit A.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 6 of 14
WO
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 City Council
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts Resolution No. 2017-; upholding the
Planning Commission's approval of a Grading Permit and Site Plan Review for the
demolition of an existing residence to accommodate the construction of a new 7,199 -
square -foot split-level residence with a modification to Condition of Approval No. 29 as it
relates to foliage trimming and maintenance at 5375 Rollingridge Road (Case No.
ZON2016-00176).
Section 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of
this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in the
Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
Section 6: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 7 of 14
A-7
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this th day of June 2017.
Brian Campbell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2017-_, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 20, 2017.
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 8 of 14
•
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00176
(5375 Rollingridge Road)
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. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void,
or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of
its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the project.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040(C) of the RPVMC, 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.
Any substantial change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 9 of 14
Me
final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate
environmental review.
6. 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.
7. 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 and administrative
citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified
on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or
legal non -conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal
or legal non -conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions
or on the stamped APPROVED plans.
12. 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.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 10 of 14
A-10
and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be
removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or
temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable
bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the
surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official.
14. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on 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. During demolition, construction
and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project
site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and
before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction
stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall
provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy
construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance
between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the
building official.
Project Specific Conditions
15. This approval is for the following:
A. The demolition of the existing 5,356 -square -foot single-family residence.
B. The construction of a new 7,199 -square -foot, split-level, single-family
residence consisting of a 4,279 -square -foot upper floor, 2,184 -square -foot
lower (ground) floor, 484 -square -foot attached garage and a 252 -square -
foot detached garage, 650 -square -feet of balcony area and an attached
lanai.
C. Pool and Spa with equipment.
D. Improvements within the 25-0" road easement including, widening the
private road to 20'-0", construction of at -grade steps and landing, new
driveway approach and grading to construct new retaining wall, which
varies in height from 2'-0" to 3'-7'/2".
E. 1,889 cubic yards of grading consisting of 939 cubic yards of cut and 948
cubic yards of fill including 9 cubic yards of import.
F. Seven (7) retaining walls, as follows:
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 11 of 14
A-11
a. One (1) up-slope retaining wall within the front setback located
along the southerly property line and roadway, which ranges in
height between 2'-0" to 3'-7 '/2".
b. One (1) up-slope retaining wall_within the front yard and westerly
side yard setbacks, which ranges in height from V-9" to 5-0"
c. One (1) down-slope retaining wall along the easterly property lines,
which ranges between 4'-0" to 8'-0".
d. One (1) up-slope retaining wall along the driveway and detached
garage, which ranges in height from V-0" to 3'-0"
e. Three (3) downslope retaining walls within the rear yard slope,
which vary in height between 1'- 5/8" to 8'-11 ".
16. The proposed retaining walls do not include a guardrail on top. Should a guardrail
be required, or installed on the property, additional Planning review and approval
shall be required for compliance with the City's combination wall height
requirements.
17. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (38.28% proposed).
18. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not
exceed 50%.
19. A minimum 3 -car garage shall be maintained (Attached 2 car garage and detached
1 car garage proposed), 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.
20. 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.
21. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 12 of 14
A-12
22. Prior to building permit issuance and/or commencement of grading, whichever
occurs first, the applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route from the Director of
Public Works.
23. 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. The height of the approved project shall be as depicted on the stamped approved
plans and in no case shall the maximum height of 15-0" as measured from the
average elevation of the front setback line abutting the street of access (elev.
99.51') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 114.5'), and 26'-6", as
measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 88.00') to
the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 114.5'). The height of the proposed
detached garage shall be 16'-0", as measured from the lowest preconstruction
grade adjacent to the foundation wall (93.86') to the proposed roof ridgeline
(elev. 109.86'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided
by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection,
based on the above mentioned instructions.
25. The approved residence shall maintain a 20'-0" front yard setback, an 54"' east
side yard setback, 26'-5" west side yard setback and a 40'-0" rear yard setback.
BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed
land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
26. This approval is for a 7,199 -square -foot split-level residence, consisting of a 4,279
square foot upper floor, 2,184 -square -foot lower floor, a 484 -square -foot attached
garage and a 252 -square -foot detached garage. BUILDING AREA
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer prior to the framing inspection.
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. The roof of the residence shall not include any white or reflective finishes or
coatings, and shall consist of a terra cotta color with finishes and materials deemed
acceptable by the Community Development Director.
29. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, the applicant shall submit
complete Landscape Plans to the Planning Division for review and approval by the
Community Development Director ensuring that the graded slopes are landscaped
and retaining walls screened with landscaping. The Landscape Plan shall call -out
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 13 of 14
A-13
existing and proposed foliage and shall notate the common species name and the
expected height at maturity. The final approved landscaping shall be installed prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. Said plans may be
required to comply with State of California Water Efficient Landscape
requirements.
The Landscape Plan shall call out the three existing trees within the front yard of
the property that are to be maintained annually to a height of 20', as measured
from the base of the tree trunk. The Landscape Plan shall also include a notation
that any other existing and proposed foliage, excluding the three aforementioned
trees, which grows to significantly impair a view from a viewing area, as defined in
RPVMC Section 17.02.040 or the Palos Verdes Golf Course property, be trimmed
by the property owner to a height level of 16', as measured from the base of the
tree trunk, for the foliage which is located within the rear yard of the property and
to the ridgeline height (1145) for the foliage that is located in the front and side
yards of the property. The heights of all existing and proposed foliage shall be
maintained on an annual basis during the month of June.
30. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting
property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over
30 calendar days shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in
Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code.
31. All applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety
Division, shall be approved by the City's geologist prior to Building Permit
issuance.
32. All mechanical equipment such as an air conditioner condenser and pool/ spa
equipment shall conform to Section 17.48.030(E)(5) of the RPVMC.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 14 of 14
A-14
April 25, 2017
To: RPV Planning Commission, Mr. Ara Mihranian, RPV City Council
From Frank & Susan Semelka
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision for 5375 Rolling Ridge Road, Case No. ZON2016-00176
My wife and I live at 5329 Bayridge Road, immediately adjacent to the subject property. After meeting
with Mr. Mihranian, Community Development Director, based on his recommendation to us, we are
requesting an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve plans for 5375 Rolling Ridge Road.
Our primary request is to add specificity to Condition 29 regarding landscape plans. At the approved
height of 26'6" front and 16' rear, the proposed construction will already impact our existing view.
Approval to grade back the hillside easement immediately adjacent to and below our property provides
a potential to severely further impact our view, on a frequently recurring basis, by added foliage,
because the elevation there is substantially higher than the mean lot grade. This concern is made more
impactful to our property and view by the Planning Commission mandate that our lot be graded down
due to apparent bulk and mass. We are requesting that Condition 29 be amended to require that
foliage on the property and in the easement shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet or the ridge line of the
primary structure, whichever is lower. There is one existing tree on the West side of the existing
driveway, which the previous owner, Mr. Paxon diligently kept trimmed until he became ill. That tree
has recently become overgrown, but we would be willing to accept an allowance for that one existing
tree to be slightly higher than 16 ft, so long as there is a written condition in the approval limiting its
maximum height and that it be annually trimmed.
Lastly, since it was discussed at the hearing, we would appreciate wording added to the approval to
define and limit the maximum height of any solar panels which may be added to the roof.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Frank & Susan Semelka
RECEIVED
APR 26 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
As
Octavio Silva
From: gcshen <gcshen@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 11:24 AM
To: Octavio Silva
Cc: Helena Shen; frankensue2@gmail.com
Subject: comments to appeal of 5375 Rollingridge Rd.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
We are concerned of the decisions made in April hearing.
Our understanding related to the flat roof was
1. It will be painted with terra cotta color.
2. There will be no hardware installation on the roof, such as air conditioner, solar panels, antenna, etc.
We have heard of saying in the meeting but not in writing on the Notice of Decision(April 12, 2017).
It is very important to us that he new construction does not ruin the view from our house.
I attach a picture here which show how eye sore is the view when you have installations on the roof.
So it is our request that the above two conditions will be written into the Decision of Notice this time.
On the other hand we also support the request of foliage condition proposed by our neighbor.
Sincerely
George Shen
5337 Bayridge Rd. RPV
C-1
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING A GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO
ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 5,356
SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 7,199
SQUARE FOOT (ATTACHED AND DETACHED GARAGE
INCLUDED), SPLIT-LEVEL, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 26'-6", AS MEASURED FROM THE
LOWEST FINISHED GRADE ADJACENT TO THE STRUCTURE
(ELEV. 88.00') TO THE HIGHEST ROOF RIDGELIKE (ELEV.
114.5') FOR THE MAIN RESIDENCE AND A MAXIMUM HEIGHT
OF 16'-0", AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST
PRECONSTRUCTION GRADE ADJACENT TO THE
FOUNDATION WALL (ELEV. 93.86') TO THE ROOF RIDGELINE
(ELEV. 109.86') FOR THE DETACHED GARAGE WITH
RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND 1,887 CUBIC YARDS OF
ASSOCIATED GRADING ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
5375 ROLLINGRIDGE ROAD (ZON2016-00176).
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2016, the applicant submitted a Height Variation, Grading Permit,
Minor Exception Permit and Site Plan Review with Neighborhood Compatibility application for the
proposed construction of a 7,199 square foot (attached and detached garage included), split-level
residence with 1,887 cubic yards of associated grading. After reviewing the project scope, Staff
determined that the proposed project only requires approval of a Grading Permit and Site Plan
Review; and,
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2016, Staff completed the initial review of the applications, at
which time the project application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the
project plans. The applicant submitted revisions on September 23, 2016, December 12, 2016,
January 17, 2017, February 14, 2017 and March 9, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2017, the requested development applications for Planning Case
No. ZON2016-00176 was deemed complete for processing; and,
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2017, a public notice was mailed to 73 property owners within
a 500 foot radius of the subject property, and was published in the Peninsula News on March 16,
2017 providing the required 15 -day public comment period; and,
WHEREAS, Staff determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section 15303(a)
(New Construction) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the
project proposes to demolish an existing 5,356 square foot single-family residence to
accommodate the construction of a new 7,199 square foot (attached and detached garage
included), split-level, single-family residence with 1,887 cubic yards of associated grading, which
allows for the construction of single-family residences; and,
D-1
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 11,
2017, 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 finds that this project is Categorically Exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section 15303(a)
(New Construction) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the
project proposes to construct a new 7,199 square foot (attached and detached garage included),
split-level residence in the RS -2 zoning district, which allows for the construction of single-family
residences.
Section 2. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to
the application for a Grading Permit to allow the construction of a new 7,199 square foot (attached
and detached garage included), split-level residence, along with 1,889 cubic yards of associated
grading consisting of 393 cubic yards of cut and 948 cubic yard of fill including 9 cubic yards of
import:
A. The proposed grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary
use of the lot, as the proposed project is in a RS -2 Zoning District, in which the primary
use of the lot is residential. The proposed grading would accommodate the construction
of a new split-level residential structure with an attached and detached garage, as well as
ancillary site improvements including patio areas, a new driveway and a wider private road
per Fire Department requirements.
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
as the applicant is proposing cut under the majority of the residence in order to notch the
structure into the existing slope. Easterly portions of the residence (media room), detached
garage and driveway do include approximately 3'-0" to 8'-8" of fill under these areas to
raise the grades and support the improvements. After conducting site visits and a review
of oblique aerial photographs of the area, Staff found that the fill portions of the proposed
residence and detached garage do not significantly impair the views of the ocean,
shoreline, Los Angeles Basin and city lights as observed from adjacent properties to the
south, east and west of the subject property. More specifically, it was found that properties
to the south, along Bayridge Road are approximately 45'-0" above the subject property,
whereby views are above the roofline of the proposed residence and detached garage.
With regards to the adjacent properties to the east and west of the project site on
Rollingridge Road, views are not impacted by the fill portions of the proposed residence
or detached garage as the proposed. Views will not be impacted from these properties as
fill portions of the residence and detached garage on the project site will be located along
the easterly property line, where views from 5335 and 5383 Rollingridge Road are oriented
in the opposite direction towards the rear of the property and away from the fill areas on
the project site. Furthermore, the view of the "Bird of Paradise" residence from properties
located on Bayridge Road, caused by the fill of the eastern portion of the residence or
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-12
Page 2 of 11
D-2
detached garage is not a protected view, as the City's View Ordinance does not protect a
view of other homes in the City and as the City's General Plan does not identify the "Bird
of Paradise" residence as a significant manmade landmark.
C The proposed grading of the natural contour lines and the finished contours are
reasonably natural. As proposed, the project grading would be limited to areas of the
subject property that have been previously graded, as part of the construction of the
existing home. In addition, applicant proposes to maintain a majority of the natural slopes
that surround the property, with the exception of minimal grading along the southerly
property line in order to expand the width of the private road with a new retaining wall that
ranges in height from 2'-0" to T -7W'. Furthermore, the grading surrounding the rear yard
is designed to blend with the existing contours and the finished contours are reasonably
natural in this area.
D The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features as the
proposed grading is primarily limited to the areas of the subject lot that were previously
graded for the construction of the existing home. Moreover, the proposed grading
generally follows the existing slope of the property, results in finished slopes that appear
reasonably natural and the proposed land -sculpturing that is to occur, along the rear yard
slope and driveway will be designed so as to blend the manufactured slopes into the
natural topography. Furthermore, prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy, a condition
requires the approval of a landscape plan and the installation of plantings to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, which will aid in stabilizing the
graded slope and will also contribute towards blending the manufactured slope into the
natural topography.
E. The proposed grading and the proposed new single-family residence is compatible with
the immediate neighborhood character as the grading is to accommodate a residence and
on-site improvements which are consistent With homes found in the immediate area and
the proposed home is compatible with the neighborhood. More specifically, after the
completion of a Neighborhood Analysis the Commission finds that the proposed
residence, detached garage and associated grading are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood with respect to scale, architectural style, and setbacks. With regards to
building size and scale, the residence will be larger than the average size of residences in
the immediate area, however it will not be the largest home in the neighborhood, as there
is one residence within the immediate area that is larger than the proposed residence.
Furthermore, the proposed residence is designed in a manner, so as to maintain the
streetscape of the neighborhood by being notched into the existing slope and maintaining
a single -story configuration, as seen from the private road. With respect to the project's
compatibility with architectural style and materials in the area, the project proposes a
residence that is in line with the estate -like neighborhood character and incorporates
facade treatments, roof design, and building materials that are consistent with the
custom homes within the immediate area. To address incompatibility concerns with
the roof design and roofing materials of the proposed project, the project has been
conditioned to require the use of "earth -tone" roofing finishes and to specifically
prohibit the use of white or other reflective finishes on the roof of the proposed
residence. In addition, the proposed residence is compatible with homes in the
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-12
Page 3 of 11
D-3
neighborhood with respect to height as there are seventeen two-story residences in
the immediate area. In terms of the project's compatibility with lot coverage conditions in
the area, the proposed project complies with the maximum lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning
district (40%), as the project proposes lot coverage of 38.28%. Furthermore, a field survey
of the surrounding neighborhood revealed that many of the residential properties in the
immediate neighborhood are at or near the same lot coverage as the subject property.
F The proposed grading does not involve a new residential tract or modifications to streets
or other public infrastructure, as all proposed grading activities will be conducted within
the existing subject property. Furthermore, the proposed grading does not impact natural
landscape or wildlife habitat, as an analysis determined that the subject property is not
within an environmentally sensitive area and does not contain any sensitive species. The
subject property is located within an existing residential tract and is zoned for the
development of a single-family residence.
G. The proposed grading conforms to the City's grading standards with regards to grading
on extreme slopes (35% or greater), as the residence and grading will be constructed on
a lot that was created prior to November 25, 1975, is zoned RS -2 (single-family residential)
and will not threaten public health, safety or welfare. In addition, the grading does not
create any slopes greater than 35%, and the project does not propose any fill or cut on a
slope that exceeds 50% gradient. As proposed, the height of retaining walls for one (1) of
the seven (7) proposed retaining walls conform to the City's grading standards. Lastly, the
project proposes to construct a new driveway that has a slope which does not exceed
20%.
H. The proposed project includes both cut and fill in order to accommodate the proposed
residence on the existing lot. With regards to cut, the project proposes the deepest cut of
8'-6" along the easterly portion of the residence in order to remove an existing, elevated
landscape planter, which appears to be the result of previous grading on the lot. The
removal of the elevated landscape planter is reasonable and necessary in order to further
notch or recess the proposed residence into the slope. In terms of the proposed fill, the
project proposes the deepest fill of 8'-8" along the easterly side property, in the vicinity of
the proposed detached garage and patio area. The proposed fill in this area is also a result
of previous grading and is intended to accommodate the improvements and to provide
improved vehicle accessibility to the residence and garage areas as required for
emergency vehicles.
Although six (6) of the proposed retaining walls exceed the height standard for retaining
walls, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed walls are consistent with the
purpose of Municipal Code section 17.76.040 and is a reasonable development of the land
and such walls are typically found throughout the neighborhood due to the existing sloping
topography. More specifically, the proposed retaining walls will provide for an improved
and expanded roadway, greater accessibility around the perimeter of the residence and
support structures and improvements such as the detached garage, patio areas and
pool/spa. The proposed walls will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to another
property, as the City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and conditionally approved
the proposed project, and further review will be required to approve a soil engineering
report for the grading and retaining wall prior to building or grading permit issuance.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-12
Page 4 of 11
M11
Furthermore, the City, prior to issuance of building permits, requires that the structure and
all retaining walls be engineered to meet the requirements of the building code.
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. A copy of the Notice of Decision and associated conditions of
approval will be sent to the following adjacent property owners:: 1) William I. Bronstein/
3470 Via Campesina, 2) Barbara J. Sonne/ 3466 Via Campesina, 3) Richard & Barbara
Johnson/ 5383 Rollingridge Road, 4) Douglas Trowbridge/5333 Rollingridge Road, 5)
Ralph B. Allman/ 5335 Rollingridge Road, 6) Mingho Chen/ 5325 Bayrdige Road 7) Frank
J. & Macshara Susan Semelka/5329 Bayridge Road, 8) Cheng Chung & Helena
Shen/5337 Bayridge Road, 9) Steve Shiang/5345 Bayridge Road, and 10) George J. &
Susan F. Kettel/ 5351 Bayridge Road.
Section 3: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to
the application for a Site Plan Review to allow for the construction of a 7,199 square foot (attached
and detached garage included), split-level residence and related site improvements:
A. The proposed residence and related improvements comply with development standards
established for the RS -2 zoning district for lots created prior to the City's incorporation.
More specifically, the project proposes a 38.28% lot coverage, which is below the
maximum 40% lot coverage allowed for an RS -2 zoned property. In addition, the detached
garage conforms to setback requirements in the RS -2 zone, as the detached garage
provides a 5'-0" setback to the easterly side property line, a 79'-0" setback to the rear
property line, and a 25'-0" setback to the front property line. In addition, the proposed pool
and spa conform to RS -2 setbacks as the pool provides a 56'-0" westerly side yard
setback, a 125'-0" easterly side yard setback and a 23'-0" setback to the rear property
line, as does the pool equipment. Lastly, the height of the proposed detached garage will
be 16-0", as measured from the lowest preconstruction grade adjacent to the foundation
wall (93.86') to the ridge (elev. 109.86'). The height of the proposed detached garage may
be increased up to 16'-0" in height in that the Planning Commission finds that the detached
garage will have no significant impact on view from adjacent properties based on a site
assessment. More specifically, the Commission finds that the homes along Bayridge Road
are located at the top of an ascending slope, approximately 45'-0" above the subject
property, whereby the neighboring views are above the roofline of the proposed detached
garage. Furthermore, the view of neighboring properties at 5383 and 5335 Rollingridge
Road are not impacted as these properties enjoy a view of the ocean, shoreline, and Los
Angeles basin, as observed from the rear of their residences. Views from these properties
are not impacted by the proposed detached garage as the proposed detached garage
would be constructed towards the front and side of the subject property, where views of
the ocean and city lights are not observed.
Section 7: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal the project to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 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
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-12
Page 5 of 11
D-5
Section 7: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal the project to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 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 April 11, 2017, 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 adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017- 1z
conditionally approving a Grading Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the applicant to
demolish an existing 5,356 square foot single-family residence to accommodate the
construction of a new 7,199 square foot (attached and detached garage included), split-level,
residence with 1,889 cubic yards of associated grading subject to the Conditions of Approval in
the attached Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1lt" day of April 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank
and Chairman Tomblin
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
RECUSSALS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Bradley
(T,,.r D -,t--- Is
Ara ,
Community Development Director
Secretary to the Planning Commission
avid L. Tomblin,
Chairman
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-12
Page 6 of 11
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00176
(5375 Rollingridge Road)
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 the date of this approval
shall render this approval null and void.
2 The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of
its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities
thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions
and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in
nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to
arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought
against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or
concerning the project.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040(C) of the RPVMC, 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. Any substantial 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.
6 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.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-12
Page 7 of 11
D-7
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 and administrative citations as described
in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code.
8. 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.
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.
10 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.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the
stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non-
conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non-
conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped
APPROVED plans.
12. 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.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to
the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting
from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the
contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided
during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize
disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building
Official.
14. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on 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. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations,
trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-
of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance
with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so,
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-12
Page 8 of 11
Mee
the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize
the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by
the building official.
Proiect Specific Conditions
15. This approval is for the following
A. The demolition of the existing 5,356 square foot single-family residence.
B. The construction of a new 7,199 square foot, split-level, single-family residence
consisting of a 4,279 square foot upper floor, 2,184 square foot lower (ground)
floor, 484 square foot attached garage and a 252 square foot detached garage,
650 square feet of balcony area and an attached lanai.
C. Pool and Spa with equipment.
D. Improvements within the 25'-0" road easement including, widening the private
road to 20'-0", construction of at -grade steps and landing, new driveway
approach and grading to construct new retaining wall, which varies in height from
2'-0" to 3'-7'/2".
E. 1,889 cubic yards of grading consisting of 939 cubic yards of cut and 948 cubic
yards of fill including 9 cubic yards of import.
F. Seven (7) retaining walls, as follows:
a. One (1) up-slope retaining wall within the front setback located along the
southerly property line and roadway, which ranges in height between 2'-0"
to T-7 1/2".
b. One (1) up-slope retaining wall within the front yard and westerly side
yard setbacks, which ranges in height from 1'-9" to 54'
c. One (1) down-slope retaining wall along the easterly property lines, which
ranges between 4'-0" to 8'-0".
d. One (1) up-slope retaining wall along the driveway and detached garage,
which ranges in height from 1'-0" to 3'-0"
e. Three (3) downslope retaining walls within the rear yard slope, which vary
in height between 1'- 5/8" to 8'-11".
16 The proposed retaining walls do not include a guardrail on top. Should a guardrail be
required, or installed on the subject property, additional Planning review and approval shall
be required for compliance with the City's combination wall height requirements.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-12
Page 9 of 11
F •
17 Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall
maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (38.28% proposed).
18. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not exceed
50%.
19 A minimum 3 -car garage shall be maintained (Attached 2 car garage and detached 1 car
garage proposed), with each required parking space being individually accessible and
maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9' in width and 20' in depth, with
minimum T vertical clearance.
20. 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.
21. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control
techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
22. Prior to building permit issuance and/or commencement of grading, whichever occurs first,
the applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route from the Director of Public Works.
23. 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. The height of the approved project shall be as depicted on the stamped approved plans
and in no case shall the maximum height of 15'-0" as measured from the average elevation
of the front setback line abutting the street of access (elev. 99.51') to the highest proposed
roof ridgeline (elev. 114.5'), and 26'-6", as measured from the lowest finished grade
adjacent to the structure (elev. 88.00') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 1145).
The height of the proposed detached garage shall be 16'-0", as measured from the lowest
preconstruction grade adjacent to the foundation wall (93.86') to the proposed roof
ridgeline (elev. 109.86'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be
provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection,
based on the above mentioned instructions.
25 The approved residence shall maintain a 20'-0" front yard setback, an 5'-0"' east side yard
setback, 26'-5" west side yard setback and a 40'-0" rear yard setback. BUILDING
SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or
civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
26 This approval is for a 7,199 square foot split-level residence, consisting of a 4,279 square
foot upper floor, 2,184 square foot lower floor, a 484 square foot attached garage and a
252 square foot detached garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be
provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection.
27. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from an existing
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-12
Page 10 of 11
D-10
power pole or other point of connection off-site prior to certificate of occupancy.
28 The roof of the residence shall not include any white or reflective finishes or coatings, and
shall consist of a terra cotta color with finishes and materials deemed acceptable by the
Community Development Director.
29. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, the applicant shall submit complete
Landscape Plans to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Community
Development Director ensuring that the graded slopes are landscaped and retaining walls
screened with landscaping. The final approved landscaping shall be installed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. Said plans may be required to
comply with the State of California Water Efficient Landscape requirements.
30. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting property
and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30 calendar days
shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in Section 17.56.050(C) of the
Development Code.
31 All applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety Division,
shall be approved by the City's geologist prior to Building Permit issuance.
32. All mechanical equipment such as an air conditioner condenser and pool/ spa equipment
shall conform to Section 17.48.030(E)(5) of the RPVMC.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-12
Page 11 of 11
D-11
CITY OFRAf ICHO1'ALOS VERDES
STAFF
REPORT
TO:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
�.
RI DGE
GRAY AD
—1--
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE:
APRIL 11, 2017
SUBJECT:
iE .
dAC r
E
PROJECT
- PROJECT SITE SWM
4
1
t1M
7
1.
, _*T
THOMAS( )E PAGE 793/B 5 1 }
TO:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
ARA MIHRANIAN, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE:
APRIL 11, 2017
SUBJECT:
GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
5375 ROLLINGRIDGE ROAD
APPLICANT: JEFFREY A. DAHL
ARCHITECT
1102 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
LANDOWNER: MICHAEL & SUZANE OLMOS
5375 ROLLINGRIDGE ROAD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
STAFF OCTAVIO SILVA
COORDINATOR: ASSOCIATE PLANNER
REQUESTED ACTION: A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 5,356 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 7,199 SQUARE
FOOT (ATTACHED AND DETACHED GARAGE INCLUDED) SPLIT-LEVEL
RESIDENCE WITH 1,887 CUBIC YARDS OF ASSOCIATED GRADING.
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-_; THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A
GRADING PERMIT AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION
OF AN EXISTING 5,356 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 7,199 SQUARE FOOT
(ATTACHED AND DETACHED GARAGE INCLUDED) SPLIT-LEVEL SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 26'-6", AS MEASURED FROM THE
LOWEST FINISHED GRADE ADJACENT TO THE STRUCTURE (ELEV. 88.001 TO THE
HIGHEST ROOF RIDGELINE (ELEV. 114.51 FOR THE MAIN RESIDENCE AND A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 16'-0", AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST
PRECONSTRUCTION GRADE ADJACENT TO THE FOUNDATION WALL (93.86') TO
THE ROOF RIDGELINE (ELEV.109.86') FOR THE DETACHED GARAGE, WITH
E-1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 2
RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND 1,887 CUBIC YARDS OF ASSOCIATED
GRADING.
REFERENCES:
ZONING: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - RS -2
LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R 1-2 DU/ACRE), EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY
DISTRICT (EQ)
CODE SECTIONS: 17.02, 17.46, 17.48, 17.76.040
GENERAL PLAN: RESIDENTIAL- 1-2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
TRAILS PLAN: N/A
SPECIFIC PLAN: N/A
CEQA: EXEMPT
ACTION DEADLINE: MAY 8, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE
BACKGROUND
On April 26, 2016, the applicant submitted Height Variation, Grading Permit, Minor Exception
Permit and Site Plan Review applications requesting to demolish an existing 5,356 square foot
(garage included) split-level residence in order to accommodate the construction of a new 7,199
square foot (attached and detached garages included) split-level residence with 1,887 cubic
yards of on-site grading.
On May 10, 2016, after reviewing the submitted information, Staff deemed the development
application incomplete. During the review of the application, it was determined that the project
does not require a Height Variation permit because the subject property is considered a "down-
slope" lot and the proposed residence met the maximum permitted height limitation of 16730'.
Additionally, it was also determined that a Minor Exception Permit would not be required
because the applicant revised the design of the proposed residence to eliminate encroachments
into the required front -yard setback. The applicant's request now consists of a Grading Permit
and a Site Plan Review, and after the submittal of revised plans on several occasions, Staff
deemed the development application complete for processing on March 9, 2017.
On March 16, 2017, a public notice was sent to 73 property owners within 500' of the subject
site, informing them of the requested applications. Additionally, the public notice was published
in the Peninsula News on the same day. To date, Staff has received public correspondences
from four residents located on Bayridge Road regarding the proposed project.
PROJECT SITE
The project site is a 35,617 (per the applicant's land survey) square foot lot located on
Rollingridge Road (a private road), that is accessed of Via Campesina in the City of Palos
Verdes Estates. The subject property is currently improved with an existing 5,356 square foot
split-level residence with a detached garage that was constructed in 1951, as well as other site
improvements including a spa, green house, and tool shed. The subject property is considered
E-2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 3
a down-sloping lot, as the property slopes downhill from the street of access and does not have
a building pad. The subject property is surrounded by single-family residential uses to the north,
south, east and west. The General Plan land use designation and zoning designation for the site
is Residential 1-2 du/ac and RS -2 (Single -Family Residential). In addition, the project site is
located within the City's Equestrian Overlay District (EQ). Lastly, there are three easements
which traverse the subject property. Two of the easements are located along the most southerly
portion of the subject property and traverses the property from east to west, one of which
includes a private road easement (Rollingridge Road) and the other a California Gas Company
easement. The third easement is a waterline easement located along the westerly property line
and traverses the property from north to south
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing residence, garage, and site
improvements to accommodate the construction of a new 6,463 square foot, split-level, single-
family residence with an attached 484 square foot garage and a 252 square foot detached
garage for a total structure size of 7,199 square feet. The proposed residence will include two
balcony areas along the rear of the residence, as well the construction of a lanai or covered
patio at the rear of the residence. The height of the proposed residence will be 15-0", as
measured from the average elevation of the setback line abutting the street of access (elev.
99.51') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 114.5'), and 26'-6", as measured from the
lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 88.00') to the highest proposed roof
ridgeline (elev. 114.5'). The height of the proposed detached garage will be 16'-0", as measured
from the lowest preconstruction grade adjacent to the foundation wall (93.86') to the roof
ridgeline (elev.109.86').
The applicant's proposal also includes 1,887 cubic yards of on-site grading to accommodate the
proposed residence and site improvements which include a pool, spa, patio areas, and a new
driveway. More specifically, the proposed grading consists of 939 cubic yards of cut and 948
cubic yard of fill including 9 cubic yards of import. The applicant's proposal also includes the
construction of seven (7) retaining walls to support the proposed improvements throughout the
site, which range in height from approximately V-5/8" to 8'-11". The applicant's proposal
includes expanding the width of the private road (Rollingridge Road) to 20'-0", constructing at -
grade steps, a new driveway approach, and grading to accommodate a new 3'-7'/z" retaining
wall within the existing 25'-0" private road easement along the southerly property line of the
subject property. As required by Section 17.48.030(F) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code (RPVMC), the applicant received easement holder authorization to complete the proposed
work within the private road easement (see attached).
In addition to the description above, a summary of the critical project statistics for the RS -2
Zoning District are defined in Table 1 below for reference. Site requirements are found in
Section 17.02.030 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Table 1: Pro'ect Statistics
CRITERIA
CODE
REQUIREMENT
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
NEW
RESIDENCE
Lot Size
20,000 sq.ft.
35,617 sq.ft.
No Change
E-3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 4
CRITERIA
CODE
REQUIREMENT
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
NEW
RESIDENCE
Structure Size (with
garages)
N/A
5,356 sq.ft.
7,199 sq.ft.
Setbacks
Front:
20'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0"
Side (east)
5'-0"
15'-0"
5-0"
*to detached garage
Side (west)
5-0"
10'-0"
26'-5"
Rear
15'-0"
46'-0"
40'-0"
Lot Coverage (%)
40%
29.98%
38.28%
Enclosed Parking
3 spaces
(>5,000ft2
structure)
3 spaces
3 spaces
Structure Height —
Downslope Lot
Lowest finished grade
adjacent to the building
foundation/slab.
30'-0"
22'- 4'/4"
26'-6"
Average elevation of
setback line abutting
the street of access
16'-0"
10'-10'
15'-0"
DISCUSSION
The following provides Staff's analysis for the proposed project as it relates to the requested
Grading Permit and a Site Plan Review.
A. GRADING PERMIT
Pursuant to Section 17.76.040 of the RPVMC, a Major Grading Permit is required for projects
that result in an excavation, fill or combination thereof, in excess of 50 cubic yards. Since a total
of 1,887 cubic yards of earth movement is being proposed as part of the project request, a
Major Grading Permit is required. In addition, as the proposed grading involves more than 1,000
cubic yards of grading, review and consideration by Planning Commission is required. Section
17.76.040(E) of the RPVMC sets forth the criteria (in bold type) required in order for the
Planning Commission to approve a Major Grading Permit application:
1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of
the lot;
Pursuant to Section 17.96.2180 of the RPVMC, "use" is defined as "the purpose for which land
or buildings are or may be arranged, designed, intended, occupied or maintained." The
proposed project is located within the City's RS -2 Zoning District, in which the primary use of the
lot is residential. The proposed grading is to accommodate the construction of a new split-level
E-4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 5
residence with ancillary site improvements including patio areas, and a new driveway and a
wider private road per Fire Department requirements. Furthermore, the proposed grading is
primarily limited to the area of the subject lot, which was previously graded for the existing
residence. In addition, no further site improvements are proposed that will disturb the existing
grades of the site. Therefore, the proposed project does not exceed what is necessary for the
permitted use of the lot and this standard can be met.
2. 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. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an
addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed
grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the
height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8) of
this title, is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same location on
the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing) grade;
The project proposes approximately 939 cubic yards of cut and 948 cubic yards of fill including 9
cubic yards of import. As a result of topographic conditions for the existing residence, the
majority of the proposed residence will require a cut beneath the building footprint in order to
notch it into the existing slope. The areas of the project site in which fill is being proposed
include the easterly portion of the residence (media room), the detached garage, and driveway
area. The project proposes approximately 3'-0" to 8'-8" of fill under these areas in order to raise
the grades to support the improvements. Lastly, the project involves some additional fill at the
rear of the residence to support the proposed pool and site improvements. Due to the proposed
fill under the easterly portion of the residence (media room) and detached garage, Staff was
primarily concerned with the potential view impacts to the residences located to the south of the
subject property along Bayridge Road which have views of the ocean, shoreline and city lights
over the subject property.
Staff received public comments from property owners at 5345 Bayridge Road and 5329
Bayridge Road indicating that the height of the proposed residence on the subject property
impairs their view of the "Bird of Paradise" House located at 3456 Via Campesina. As the
proposed residence is being constructed to the by -right height (16730') permitted for a down-
slope lot, Staff's assessment of view impairments would be limited to those areas of fill under
the residence that may significantly impair a view. On March 17, 2017, Staff visited the property
at 5345 Bayridge Road to assess view concerns and found that due to existing and mature
landscaping along the rear slope of this property, Staff was unable to determine if the fill
portions of the proposed residence or detached garage impair views of the "Bird of Paradise"
residence, as observed from the viewing area of the 5345 Bayridge Road.
It is important to note that the City's View Ordinance does not protect views of other homes
within the City and according to the City's General Plan, the "Bird of Paradise" residence is not
considered a significant manmade landmark. Rather, the City's View Ordinance defines
protected views as either `near view', which include a valley, ravine or any natural setting and a
'far view', which include locations off the peninsula such as the ocean, Los Angeles Basin, and
shoreline. Furthermore, Staff's assessment from the viewing area at 5345 Bayridge Road
determined that the proposed residence or detached garage will not impair a view of the ocean,
shoreline, or city lights. This is because the residence at 5345 Bayridge Road is located at the
top of a slope that ascends approximately 45-0" above the subject property and that the roofline
of the proposed residence and detached garage will be below the protected "near" and "far"
E-5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 6
views of the ocean, shoreline, Los Angeles basin and city lights. Staff requested a site visit to
the property at 5329 Bayridge Road, however, the property owner indicated that she was
unavailable for a site visit due to work scheduling and provided photographs of her view
concerns (Attached). Based on an analysis of the photos provided, it appears that a portion of
the proposed residence impairs a view of the unprotected "Bird of Paradise" residence, however
views of the ocean, shoreline and city lights are not impacted.
In regards to potential view impacts to the adjacent properties to the east and west of the project
located 5335 Rollingridge Road and 5383 Rollingridge Road, respectively, a site visit was
conducted on March 30, 2017. Based on the site visit to the area and an assessment of oblique
aerials of the area, Staff found that views from these two properties would not be significantly
impacted by the proposed fill portions of the proposed residence and detached garage. This is
because the fill portions of the proposed residence and detached garage on the project site will
be located along the easterly property line, where views from 5335 and 5383 Rollingridge Road
are oriented in the opposite direction towards the rear of the property and away from the fill
areas on the project site. As such, this finding can be met.
3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished
contours are reasonably natural;
The proposed grading of the natural contour lines and the finished contours are reasonably
natural. As proposed, the project grading would be limited to areas of the subject property that
have been previously graded as part of the construction of the existing home. In addition, the
applicant proposes to maintain a majority of the natural slopes that surround the property, with
the exception of minimal grading along the southerly property line in order to expand the width
of the private road with a new retaining wall that ranges in height from 2'-0" to 3'-7'/z".
Furthermore, the grading surrounding the rear yard is designed to blend with the existing
contours, and the finished contours are reasonably natural in this area. Therefore this criterion
can be met.
4. 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 grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features as the proposed
grading is primarily limited to the areas of the subject lot that were previously graded for the
construction of the existing home. Moreover, as previously stated, the proposed grading
generally follows the existing slope of the property and results in finished slopes that appear
reasonably natural. Additionally, although some land -sculpturing is proposed to occur along the
rear slope to accommodate rear yard improvements and along the redesigned driveway, it is
designed so as to blend the manufactured slopes seamlessly into the natural topography.
Furthermore, prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy, Staff recommends a condition that
requires the approval of a landscape plan and the installation of plantings, to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director, which will aid in stabilizing the graded slope and will also
contribute towards blending the manufactured slope into the natural topography. Therefore, this
criterion can be met.
5. For new single-family residence, the grading and/or related construction is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood character;
E-6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 7
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed grading to accommodate the proposed residence and
related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. The applicant is proposing
to grade (cut) approximately 8'-6" under the house in order to notch the residence into existing
slope, thereby reducing the overall mass and scale of the proposed structure in order to ensure
compatibility with neighboring properties within the same zoning district along Rollingridge
Road. In addition, the applicant is proposing to fill under the driveway and cut along the
southerly property line in order to widen the private road, so as to provide improved emergency
vehicle access to the subject property and the adjacent property at 5383 Rollingridge Road.
With respect to the proposed residence's compatibility with the character of the immediate
neighborhood, Staff completed a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis, which is discussed in
greater detail below:
Neighborhood Compatibility
Section 17.02.030(B)(1) of the RPVMC requires a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis
whenever a new residence is proposed to replace an existing residence. Since the applicant
is proposing to demolish an existing residence on the subject property and construct a new
residence, a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis was completed for the project proposal.
For the purpose of analyzing the proposed residence, the Municipal Code defines
neighborhood character to include: a) the scale of surrounding residences b) architectural
styles and materials of the surrounding area, and c) the front, side, and rear yard setbacks
within the same zoning district. The Code language is noted in boldface below, followed by
Staffs analysis in normal type:
(1) Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot
coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures.
Compatibility with neighborhood character is based on a comparison of the project to other
existing structures located within the immediate area and within the same zoning district.
Typically, the immediate neighborhood is comprised of the twenty closest properties. Table
No. 2 below illustrates the lot area and structure sizes of the residences that can be found
within the immediate neighborhood. It is important to note that the residences included in
the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis have the same RS -2 zoning designation as the
subject property and are located to the north, east and west of the subject property.
Properties to the south of the subject property, along Bayridge Road, are located in the RS -
5 zoning district, and are therefore not included in the analysis.
'able No. 2: Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis Matrix
A�1 E SSS
t Si
S' i 1 `..
g1...
r
,fines
5241 Rollingridge
Road
65,447
6,607
2
5251 Rollingridge
Road
65,223
4,502
2
5287 Rollingridge
Road
80,806
4,411
2
5317 Rollingridge
Road
67,815
2,661
1
5333 Rollingridge
Road
32,751
3,960
2
5335 Rollingridge
Road
32,743
8,297
2
5383 Rollingridge
Road
43,219
3,898
2
3470 Via Cam
esina
30,095
6,260
2
3502 Via Campesina
50,624
3,807
2
E-7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 8
3504 Via Cam esina
21,740
4,060
2
3508 Via Cam esina
86,939
4,296
1
3476 Via Cam esina
30,293
4,048
2
3460 Via Cam esina
28,114
4,203
2
3466 Via Cam esina
55,834
5,422
2
3462 Via Cam esina
31,526
3,940
1
3458 Via Cam esina
33,926
4,140
2
3456 Via Cam esina
65,351
5,060
2
3440 Via Cam esina
65,738
5,829
2
3340 Via Cam esina
38,657
3,173
2
3330 Via Cam esina
71,843
3,512
2
49,934
4,604
2
-Average
5375
Rollingridge
Road
Existing
Proposed
35,617
5,356 1
7199
2
2
*Note: The above calculations for structure size are based on building permits on file with the City and include the
garage area; where the garage area was not documented on the building permit, it was calculated based on the
Development Code's requirement for two (2) parking spaces with minimum dimensions for each individual parking
stall being 9'x20' (180 sq. ft.).
As reflected in Table No. 2 above, the immediate neighborhood is comprised of structures
that range in size from 2,661 square feet to 8,297 square feet, with an average structure
size of 4,604 square feet. In addition, of the 20 homes within the immediate neighborhood,
17 are two-story in height. Although the square footage of the proposed residence (7,199
square feet) is larger than the average of the 20 closest homes, the proposed residence is
smaller than the largest home in the area, which is currently 8,297 square feet located on a
slightly smaller lot than the subject property. The mass and scale of the residence is
proportionate in visual appearance to other residences within the immediate neighborhood
especially along Rollingridge Road. The proposed residence preserves the existing streetscape
of the neighborhood, and is designed in a manner so as to minimize the overall scale of the
proposed structure by maintaining a single -story configuration as seen from the private road.
Furthermore, the applicant is proposing to cut the existing slope, so as to notch a portion of the
proposed residence into the hillside, thereby reducing the visibility of the overall scale of the
proposed structure as seen from Rollingridge Road. As such, Staff is of the opinion that the
proposed residence will not be out of character with the neighborhood and does not create
an anomaly in terms of scale and structure size, and therefore keeps with the style and
custom setting of the immediate neighborhood.
As previously noted, the proposed project complies with the maximum lot coverage in the
RS -2 zoning district (40%), and will result in a total lot coverage of 38.28%. After conducting
an aerial survey of the surrounding neighborhood, Staff confirmed that many of the
residential properties within the immediate neighborhood are at or near 40% lot coverage.
As the proposed project is still below the maximum lot coverage, and provides a lot
coverage that is comparable to other properties within the immediate neighborhood, Staff is
of the opinion that the residence is compatible in terms of scale and structure size, and this
finding can be supported.
(2) Architectural styles, including facade treatments, structure height, open space
between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure,
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 9
number of stories, and building materials.
The immediate neighborhood is comprised of estate -like lots that have been developed with
custom homes ranging in architectural styles that vary between California Ranch,
Mediterranean and Mid -Century Modern. Homes amongst the 20 closest to the subject
property were not constructed as part of a tract development, therefore there is no
predominant architectural style. Homes within the immediate area were custom built, for
example the "Bowler House," better known as the "Bird of Paradise" residence, located at
3456 Via Campesina.
While the design of the proposed residence is in line with the custom neighborhood
character, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project incorporates some design
elements and materials that are consistent with the immediate neighborhood. As proposed,
the fagade of the residence will be improved with smooth stucco, some accent stone work
and large windows, all of which are common design features found within the immediate
neighborhood.
With regards to open space between structures, an aerial review of the closest 20 homes,
indicates that the open space between structures varies from property to property, as a
result of the custom construction of the homes and how the homes were situated on each
lot.
In terms of roof design, the project plans indicate that the roof of the proposed residence
and detached garage will be flat. The City received public comments from three property
owners at 5337, 5345 and 5329 Bayridge Road who expressed a concern with the
compatibility of the flat roof design of the proposed residence. As previously discussed, a site
visit to the property at 5345 Bayridge Road was conducted, however site visits to the properties
at 5329 and 5337 Bayridge Road were not conducted, as the property owners indicated they
would be unavailable during Staff's assessment and preparation of this report. The neighbors'
concerns with the flat roof design range from it being "unattractive" to "presenting unsightly
conditions" such as hardware, color schemes or reflective surfaces such as a solar panels. A
concern that was also raised with regards to the roof design indicates that the flat roof is not
compatible with other "red -tile" roof homes in the area. A review of the closest 20 homes,
found that roof designs in the area include hip, gable, and flat, as observed on the property
at 3330 Via Campesina. In addition, roof designs in the area include more custom designs
as evident in the "Bird of Paradise" residence, which includes a steeply pitched roof.
Roofing materials also vary amongst the 20 closest homes, which include a mixture of tile
and composition shingles. The applicant's project plans do not indicate what the finished
material of the roof will be, but the project has been conditioned that the roofing material be an
"earth -tone" color, and specifically prohibit white or reflective roof finishes to minimize impacts to
the residences upslope along Bayridge Road. The applicant has expressed a willingness to
provide a crushed terra-cotta material on the flat roof of the proposed residence, so as to
resemble conditions in the area. The applicant's plans do not include any specifications as to
whether or not solar panels are being proposed as part of this application, and solar panels are
for the most permitted based on local and state laws.
In terms of the project's bulk and mass, the City received a public comment from the
property owner at 5329 Bayridge Road, who expressed a concern related to the bulk and
E-9
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 10
mass of the proposed residence. Staff is of the opinion that potential bulk and mass of the
7,199 square foot (attached and detached garage included) split-level residence is
consistent with the 20 closest properties of the subject site, with similar RS -2 zoning
designations. More specifically, the proposed residence maintains the existing streetscape due
to the design of the proposed residence as a single -story configuration, as seen from the
Rollingridge Road and the natural topography in the area. In addition, the subject downslope
residence is permitted to be constructed within a 16730' building envelope and as proposed, the
height of the residence will comply with the Development Code height standards for a
downslope lot. More specifically, the height of the residence will be 15'-0", as measured from
the average elevation of the setback line abutting the street of access (elev. 99.51') to the
highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 114.5'), and 26-6", as measured from the lowest finished
grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 88.00') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev.
114.5'). Lastly, the applicant's request to construct a two-story residence is compatible with the
immediate neighborhood, as an assessment of the 20 closet homes confirmed that there are
currently 17 two-story residences in the immediate area. It should be noted that the public
comment letters submitted from the property owners on Bayridge Road are asserting that the
proposed residence, as viewed from their properties, appears bulky and massive, and
incompatible with the homes on their street. As previously noted, the properties on Bayridge
Road are located in the RS -5 zoning district on "pad lots" and are not considered a part of the
neighborhood for purposes of this Neighborhood Compatibility Finding.
Therefore, Staff believes that the architectural style, fagade treatments, building height, roof
design, materials, and the bulk and mass will be consistent with those materials and
designs found within the immediate neighborhood.
(3) Front, side, and rear yard setbacks.
According to Section 17.02.030 the Development Code, structures in the RS -2 zoning district,
created prior to the City's incorporation, shall maintain the following minimum setbacks: 20'-0"
front yard setback, 15-0" rear yard and 5-0" side yard setbacks. Plans for the proposed
residence indicate that the setbacks of the new residence will conform to RS -2 setback
requirements. Furthermore, the design of the proposed residence attempts to maintain some of
the existing setbacks, as a 20'-0" front yard setback is being proposed, which is consistent with
existing conditions on the subject property. A review of the setbacks amongst the 20 closest
properties confirned that setbacks vary depending on the topography of the lots and how the
homes are sited on each lot. As such, Staff believes the project's proposed setbacks are
consistent with the neighborhood. Therefore, this finding can be made.
Based on the above analysis, Staff concludes that the proposed 7,199 square foot, split-
level, single-family residence (attached and detached garages included) would not
adversely alter the character of the immediate neighborhood.
6. 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;
The proposed grading does not involve a new residential tract and therefore this criterion does
not apply.
E-10
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 11
7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize
grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the
hillside;
The proposed project does not involve modifications to public streets or other public
infrastructure. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project.
8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation;
The proposed grading area does not contain natural landscape or wildlife habitat and therefore,
this criterion can be met.
9. The grading conforms to the following standards:
a. Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% shall be allowed on recorded and
legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975, which are not currently
zoned open space/ hazard, if the Planning Commission finds that such grading, as
conditioned, will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare.
The applicant is requesting to grade over portions of lot that are considered to be within extreme
slope. More specifically, grading within these areas includes some fill along the redesigned
driveway, as well as fill along the rear slope to accommodate rear yard improvements. The
project proposes to replace the existing steps with a newly configured on -grade steps which are
located along the rear slope of the subject property in an area that is designated as an extreme
slope. In addition, the applicant proposes to construct entry steps within the front yard setback,
over an extreme slope, in order to provide access from the roadway down to the entry of the
proposed residence. Section 17.48.060(F) of the RPVMC, allows for the construction of at -
grade steps within an extreme slope, considering that the steps are less than 6" in height. The
project plans indicate that the proposed stairs comply with this Code requirement. As the
subject lot was created prior to November 25, 1975, is zoned RS -2 and will not threaten public
health, safety or welfare, this criterion can be met.
b. No finished slopes greater than 35% shall be created, except at the point of
vehicular access adjacent to driveways.
The proposed grading does not create any slopes greater than 35%; therefore this standard can
be met.
c. Except for the excavation of a basement or cellar, a fill or cut shall not exceed a
depth of 5'-0" at any point except where the Planning Commission determines that
unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances
make such grading reasonable and necessary.
The proposed project includes both cut and fill in order to accommodate the proposed residence
on the existing lot. With regards to cut, the project proposes the deepest cut of 8'-6" along the
easterly portion of the residence in order to remove an existing, elevated landscape planter,
which appears to be the result of previous grading on the lot. The removal of the elevated
landscape planter is reasonable and necessary in order to further notch or recess the proposed
residence into the slope. In terms of the proposed fill, the project proposes the deepest fill of 8'-
E-11
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 12
8" along the easterly side property, in the vicinity of the proposed detached garage and patio
area. The proposed fill in this area is also a result of previous grading and is intended to
accommodate the improvements and to provide improved vehicle accessibility to the residence
and garage areas as required for emergency vehicles. As such, Staff believes that the Planning
Commission can make this finding.
d. No fill or cut shall be permitted on a slope exceeding 50% gradient, unless the
grading is on a 67% slope adjacent to a driveway.
The applicant is not proposing any fill or cut on a slope that exceeds 50% gradient. As such, this
standard can be met.
e. Unless located within the required front or street side setback, one upslope
retaining wall not to exceed eight feet in height may be used; One downslope
retaining wall not to exceed three and one-half feet maybe used; Retaining walls
located in the required front or street side setback shall not exceed 3.5 feet in
height;
The project proposes to construct a total of 7 retaining walls within the front yard setback, side
yard setbacks, and rear yard of the subject property. With regards to the retaining walls within
the front yard, the applicant is proposing to construct a new upslope retaining wall along the
southerly property line, along the south side of the private road easement, which ranges in
height from approximately 2'-0" to 3'-7'/z". The construction of this retaining wall is to
accommodate an improved roadway for better vehicle accessibility.
The applicant also proposes the construction one upslope retaining wall, within the front and
side yard setbacks, which ranges in height from approximately 1'-9" to 5'-0". This retaining wall
accommodates proposed at -grade steps from the road down to the front entry of the residence,
as well as provides a concrete walkway around the perimeter of the residence. This proposed
retaining wall also exceeds retaining wall height limitations for retaining walls within the front
yard setback. The applicant also proposes to construct one downslope retaining wall along the
easterly side property line that will range in height from approximately 4'-0" to 8'-0" and will
accommodate the fill for the detached garage and related site improvements including a patio
area. This retaining wall also exceeds retaining wall height limitations for walls within the side
yard.
In the area of the re -designed driveway and detached garage, the applicant proposes the
construction of an upslope retaining wall that ranges in height from 1'-0" to 3'-0". This retaining
wall will provide fill for enhanced accessibility along the driveway and the detached garage.
Lastly, the project proposes to construct three downslope retaining walls, which range in height
from approximately 1'-5/8" to 8'-11 ", at the rear of the residence in order to accommodate
improvements. Improvements in the rear yard include a pool, spa, patio area and a lanai. These
three down-sloping retaining walls also exceed height limitations. As six out of the seven
proposed retaining walls will exceed the height limitations for retaining walls, this criterion
cannot be met without making finding 10, below.
f. Driveways which exceed 20% slope shall not be permitted except that one length,
not at the point of access, of not more than 10 linear feet may have a slope of up to
22%;
E-12
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 13
The project proposes to construct a new driveway that has a slope which ranges between 5%
and 14%, which does not exceed 20%.
As noted above, the applicant is proposing a cut of 8'-6" and a fill of 8'-8", which are in excess of
the cut and fill limit of 5'-0". In addition, the applicant proposes to construct retaining walls that
exceed established height limits. As such, the proposed grading does not conform to all of the
standards of Criterion No. 9 of the Grading Permit findings. More specifically, the proposed
grading does not conform to Standard No. C and E. However, the Commission may approve a
Grading Permit that does not conform to these standards, provided that the following Findings
can be adopted as Grading Finding No. 10:
10a) The first eight criterion in subsection (E)(1) through (E)(8) of Municipal Code Section
17.76.040 have been met.
As noted in the discussion above, Staff's opinion is that all eight criteria are being met;
therefore, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted.
10b) The request is consistent with the purpose of Municipal Code Section 17.76.040.
Section 17.76.040 of the RPVMC states, "The purpose of the chapter is to provide reasonable
development of land, ensure the maximum preservation of the scenic character of the area,
ensure that the development of properties occurs in a manner harmonious to adjoining
properties, and that the project complies with the goals and polices of the General Plan. " The
request to construct retaining walls within the front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks,
which exceed retaining wall height limitations, is being proposed in order to provide accessibility
around the perimeter of the residence and provide greater vehicle accessibility to the attached
and detached garage through a re -designed driveway, especially for emergency vehicle access.
The scenic character of the neighborhood would not be altered, as portions of the retaining
walls that exceeds the height limitations, face the interior of the property and will be improved
with landscaping, so as to provide additional screening. As such, Staff believes this finding can
be adopted.
10c) Approval of the grading permit will not constitute a special privilege with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity.
The approval of the requested Grading Permit will not constitute a special privilege as retaining
walls at various heights are typically found throughout the neighborhood as a result of the
existing sloping topography. As such, Staff believes this finding can be adopted.
10d) Departures from the standards will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to
other property.
The City's geotechnical consultant has conditionally approved the proposed project in the
planning stage, and further review of a soil engineering report for the retaining wall will be
required in the Plan Check process prior to building and/or grading permit issuance.
Furthermore, the City, prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits, will also require that
all retaining walls be engineered to meet the requirements of the Building Code. These
aforementioned requirements are placed on all structures, regardless of the deviations in the
grading standards. As such, deviating from the standards does not alter the City's review of the
structural aspect of the structure and the retaining wall. With these provisions, the proposed
E-13
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 14
deviation will not cause a detrimental impact to public safety and/or other properties in the
vicinity of the project. As such, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted.
10e) Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property
adjacent to the subject property.
A Notice of Decision and associated conditions of approval of the Planning Commission's
decision will be mailed to the following adjacent property owners: 1) William I. Bronstein/ 3470
Via Campesina, 2) Barbara J. Sonne/ 3466 Via Campesina, 3) Richard & Barbara Johnson/
5383 Rollingridge Road, 4) Douglas Trowbridge/5333 Rollingridge Road, 5) Ralph B. Allman/
5335 Rollingridge Road, 6) Mingho Chen/ 5325 Bayrdige Road 7) Frank J. & Macshara Susan
Semelka/5329 Bayridge Road, 8) Cheng Chung & Helena Shen/5337 Bayridge Road, 9) Steve
Shiang/5345 Bayridge Road, and 10) George J. & Susan F. Kettel/ 5351 Bayridge Road.
As discussed, Staff is of the opinion that the required findings can be made and the proposed
grading application, which is in excess of that normally permissible under subsection (E)(9) of
Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040, can be approved.
Based on the above analysis, the applicant's proposed grading meets all the requirements of
the City's Development Code for a Major Grading Permit. Thus, Staff is of the opinion that the
grading is appropriate for the residential property and does not create any significant impacts
related to grading. Therefore, Staff recommends the conditional approval of the requested
Grading Permit.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW
A Site Plan Review application is processed for projects which involve the conversion of space
or alteration of lot coverage, as required by Section 17.70.010 of the Development Code. The
Development Code specifies lot coverage to include any building or structure, decks over 30
inches in height, parking areas or driveways, and all other impervious surface areas (less one
500 square foot uncovered patio and 5-0" walkway. Lot coverage for the existing site is 10,667
square feet, which includes the building footprint of the existing residence and detached garage,
driveway, and hardscape areas and accounts for 29.98% of the 35,617 square foot lot. The
proposed residence and related site improvements would result in a new lot coverage which
includes the building footprint (5,015 square feet) attached garage (484 square feet), detached
garage (252 square feet), balconies (650 square feet), new driveway (2,350 square feet), and
hardscape areas (5,620 square feet), which accounts for 38.28% of the 35,617 square foot lot.
Site improvements include lot coverage for the new pool and spa at the rear of the residence
along the rear slope, as well as a patio area along the easterly side property line. The maximum
lot coverage allowable in the RS -2 zone is 40%; therefore, the proposed addition complies with
the maximum allowable lot coverage for the property.
As described in Table 1 of this report, Staff has determined that the proposed residence and
attached garage complies with residential setback standards as required by Section 17.02.030
of the Development Code for the RS -2 zoning district. In addition, the proposed detached
garage conforms to setback requirements for the RS -2 zone, as the detached garage provides a
5'-0" setback to the easterly side property line, a 79'-0" setback to the rear property line, and a
25-0" setback to the front property line. Lastly, the proposed pool also complies with setback
requirements, as the pool provides a 56'-0" westerly side yard setback, a 125'-0" easterly side
E-14
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 15
yard setback and a 23'-0" setback to the rear property line, as does the proposed pool
equipment.
The detached garage, which will be 16'-0" in height, as measured from the lowest
preconstruction grade adjacent to the foundation wall (93.86') to the ridge (elev. 109.86').
Pursuant to Section 17.48.050(D) of the RPVMC, the maximum height of an accessory
structure, such as the proposed detached garage, is 12'-0", as measured from the lowest
preconstruction grade adjacent to the foundation wall. The height of the proposed detached
garage may be increased up to 16'-0" in height, as the applicant is proposing, upon a finding by
the Planning Commission that the detached garage will have no significant impact on views
from adjacent properties. As previously reported, site visits were conducted by Staff on March
17, 2017 and March 30, 2017, and it was found that the proposed 164' high detached garage
will not impact a view from an adjacent property. More specifically, homes along Bayridge Road
are located at the top of an ascending slope, approximately 45-0" above the subject property,
whereby the neighboring views are above the roofline of the proposed detached garage.
Furthermore, the view of neighboring properties at 5383 and 5335 Rollingridge Road are not
impacted as these properties enjoy a view of the ocean, shoreline, and Los Angeles basin, as
observed from the rear of their residences. Views from these properties are not impacted by the
proposed detached garage as the proposed detached garage would be constructed towards the
front and side of the subject property, where views of the ocean and city lights are not observed.
As such, the proposed 7,199 square foot split-level residence (including attached and detached
garages) and related site improvements conform to the required setback, lot coverage and
height requirements in the RS -2 single-family residential zone.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ENVIROMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section 15303(a) (New
Construction) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the
project proposes to construct a new 7,199 square foot, split-level, residence (attached and
detached garages included) and related site improvements in the RS -2 zoning district, which
allows for the construction of single-family residences.
EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT
The subject project site is located within the City's Equestrian District. According to Section
17.46 of the RPVMC, properties in an equestrian overlay (Q) district may be used for the
keeping of horses and other large domestic animals by property owners or lessees. However,
keeping of horses or setting aside a portion of the property for the potential of keeping of horses
(as stated in Section 17.46.080(5)) within the Q -district is not a requirement per the City's
Municipal Code, but incentives are provided to encourage property owners to set aside property
for future equestrian use. The applicant has stated that they are not interested in setting aside
area for equestrian use.
FOLIAGE ANALYSIS
E-15
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 16
As the new residential structure would create more than 120 square feet of viewing or gathering
area, a foliage analysis was triggered. On March 30, 2017, Staff conducted a foliage analysis of
the subject property. During this analysis, Staff determined that no foliage on the subject
property significantly impairs the view from a viewing area of an adjoining property in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
On March 16, 2017, the public notice of the proposed Grading Permit and Site Plan Review
applications were sent to 73 property owners within 500' of the subject property and published
in the Peninsula News. As previously reported, Staff received public correspondence from four
residents located on Bayridge Road. The source of the public comments that were received,
center on six issues, which include potential view impairment, incompatibility with roof design
and the structure's bulk and mass, as well as accessibility, lot conditions and parking along
Roilingridge Road. The public comments pertaining to potential view impairment is discussed
under Grading Permit Finding No. 2, and roof design incompatibility and bulk and mass are
discussed under Grading Permit Finding No. 5(2). The remaining concerns are discussed in
further detail below:
Accessibility
The property owner at 5329 Bayridge Road expressed a concern with the proposed retaining
wall along the southerly property line of the subject property. More specifically, the property
owner asked if the proposed retaining wall can provide an opening to provide accessibility from
the property at 5351 Bayridge Road to the private road (Roilingridge Road). As this is a private
matter, Staff informed the project applicant of the request.
Lot Elevations
The property owner at 5329 Bayridge Road also expressed a concern with the "algorithm" used
by the City to obtain the lot elevations presented on the plans and survey, which are used to
determine the overall height of a structure. When assessing the height of a structure on
development plans, the City requires an applicant to provide engineered drawings that provide
elevation datum points based on a land survey. The height of a structure is determined by the
type of lot on which the structure is being constructed. For instance, a "down-slope" lot, such as
the subject property, is permitted to allow construction at a 16'/30' building envelope, while a
"pad lot" is permitted to allow construction at a 16'/20' building envelope (and may go up to 26'
in height with the approval of a Height Variation permit). An aerial review of the subject property
and the property at 5329 Bayridge Road found that the two lots are different with respect to
zoning and in that the subject property is a "downslope" lot and the commenter's lot is
considered a "pad lot" with different height requirements. As such, the lot elevations, height
limitations and conditions on the subject property are not the same as those on the 5329
Bayridge Road property.
Parking along Rollingrid e Road
The property owner at 5329 Bayridge Road also expressed a concern with the construction of
the retaining wall, in that the new wall would enable an expanded roadway and allow for it to be
used as a parking lot. Furthermore, the property owner is concerned that the parking of vehicles
along the retaining wall would create noise, traffic and crime impacts. Project plans do not
indicate that the applicant is proposing to utilize the expanded private road as a parking lot.
Rather, the project proposes a re -designed driveway, with increased accessibility to the
attached and detached garages to accommodate off-street parking. In addition, the construction
E-16
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176)
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 17
of the retaining wall to expand the width of the private road from approximately 12'-0" to 20'-0" is
intended to provide improved emergency vehicle access to the subject property, as well as the
property located at 5383 Rollingridge Road.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis, Staff concludes that all of the required findings can be adopted to
conditionally approve the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review request for the demolition of the
existing single-family residence to accommodate the construction of the proposed 7,199 square
foot (attached and detached garages included), split-level., residence with related site
improvements and associated grading. As such, Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve, with conditions, the requested Grading Permit and Site Plan Review
permit request (Case No. ZON2016-00176).
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning
Commission to act on:
1. Deny, without prejudice, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application request (Case
No. ZON2016-00176), and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with a Resolution
memorializing the final decision;
2. Deny the Grading Permit and approve the Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-
00176), and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with a Resolution memorializing the
final decision;
3. Approve the Grading Permit and deny the Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-
00176), and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with a Resolution memorializing the
final decision; or,
4. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the
applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a
date certain.
ATTACHMENTS
• Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
• Conditions of Approval
• Easement Holder Authorization
• Public Comments
• Project Plans
E-17
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING A GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
TO ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 5,356
SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 7,199
SQUARE FOOT (ATTACHED AND DETACHED GARAGE
INCLUDED), SPLIT-LEVEL, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT
A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 26'-6", AS MEASURED FROM THE
LOWEST FINISHED GRADE ADJACENT TO THE STRUCTURE
(ELEV. 88.00') TO THE HIGHEST ROOF RIDGELINE (ELEV.
114.5') FOR THE MAIN RESIDENCE AND A MAXIMUM HEIGHT
OF 16'-0", AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST
PRECONSTRUCTION GRADE ADJACENT TO THE
FOUNDATION WALL (ELEV. 93.86') TO THE ROOF
RIDGELINE (ELEV. 109.86') FOR THE DETACHED GARAGE
WITH RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND 1,887 CUBIC
YARDS OF ASSOCIATED GRADING ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5375 ROLLINGRIDGE ROAD (ZON2016-00176).
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2016, the applicant submitted a Height Variation, Grading
Permit, Minor Exception Permit and Site Plan Review with Neighborhood Compatibility
application for the proposed construction of a 7,199 square foot (attached and detached garage
included), split-level residence with 1,887 cubic yards of associated grading. After reviewing the
project scope, Staff determined that the proposed project only requires approval of a Grading
Permit and Site Plan Review; and,
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2016, Staff completed the initial review of the applications, at
which time the project application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the
project plans. The applicant submitted revisions on September 23, 2016, December 12, 2016,
January 17, 2017, February 14, 2017 and March 9, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2017, the requested development applications for Planning
Case No. ZON2016-00176 was deemed complete for processing; and,
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2017, a public notice was mailed to 73 property owners within
a 500 foot radius of the subject property, and was published in the Peninsula News on March
16, 2017 providing the required 15 -day public comment period; and,
WHEREAS, Staff determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section
15303(a) (New Construction) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA.
Specifically, the project proposes to demolish an existing 5,356 square foot single-family
residence to accommodate the construction of a new 7,199 square foot (attached and detached
garage included), split-level, single-family residence with 1,887 cubic yards of associated
grading, which allows for the construction of single-family residences; and,
E-18
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 11, 2017, 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 finds that this project is Categorically Exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section
15303(a) (New Construction) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA.
Specifically, the project proposes to construct a new 7,199 square foot (attached and detached
garage included), split-level residence in the RS -2 zoning district, which allows for the
construction of single-family residences.
Section 2, The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect
to the application for a Grading Permit to allow the construction of a new 7,199 square foot
(attached and detached garage included), split-level residence, along with 1,889 cubic yards of
associated grading consisting of 393 cubic yards of cut and 948 cubic yard of fill including 9
cubic yards of import:
A. The proposed grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary
use of the lot, as the proposed project is in a RS -2 Zoning District, in which the primary
use of the lot is residential. The proposed grading would accommodate the construction
of a new split-level residential structure with an attached and detached garage, as well
as ancillary site improvements including patio areas, a new driveway and a wider private
road per Fire Department requirements.
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 as the applicant is proposing cut under the majority of the residence in order
to notch the structure into the existing slope. Easterly portions of the residence (media
room), detached garage and driveway do include approximately 3'-0" to 8'-8" of fill under
these areas to raise the grades and support the improvements. After conducting site
visits and a review of oblique aerial photographs of the area, Staff found that the fill
portions of the proposed residence and detached garage do not significantly impair the
views of the ocean, shoreline, Los Angeles Basin and city lights as observed from
adjacent properties to the south, east and west of the subject property. More specifically,
it was found that properties to the south, along Bayridge Road are approximately 45-0"
above the subject property, whereby views are above the roofline of the proposed
residence and detached garage. With regards to the adjacent properties to the east and
west of the project site on Rollingridge Road, views are not impacted by the fill portions
of the proposed residence or detached garage as the proposed. Views will not be
impacted from these properties as fill portions of the residence and detached garage on
the project site will be located along the easterly property line, where views from 5335
and 5383 Rollingridge Road are oriented in the opposite direction towards the rear of the
property and away from the fill areas on the project site. Furthermore, the view of the
"Bird of Paradise" residence from properties located on Bayridge Road, caused by the fill
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 2 of 11
E-19
of the eastern portion of the residence or detached garage is not a protected view, as
the City's View Ordinance does not protect a view of other homes in the City and as the
City's General Plan does not identify the "Bird of Paradise" residence as a significant
manmade landmark.
C. The proposed grading of the natural contour lines and the finished contours are
reasonably natural. As proposed, the project grading would be limited to areas of the
subject property that have been previously graded, as part of the construction of the
existing home. In addition, applicant proposes to maintain a majority of the natural
slopes that surround the property, with the exception of minimal grading along the
southerly property line in order to expand the width of the private road with a new
retaining wall that ranges in height from 2'-0" to 3'-71/2". Furthermore, the grading
surrounding the rear yard is designed to blend with the existing contours and the finished
contours are reasonably natural in this area.
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features as the
proposed grading is primarily limited to the areas of the subject lot that were previously
graded for the construction of the existing home. Moreover, the proposed grading
generally follows the existing slope of the property, results in finished slopes that appear
reasonably natural and the proposed land -sculpturing that is to occur, along the rear
yard slope and driveway will be designed so as to blend the manufactured slopes into
the natural topography. Furthermore, prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy, a
condition requires the approval of a landscape plan and the installation of plantings to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, which will aid in stabilizing the
graded slope and will also contribute towards blending the manufactured slope into the
natural topography.
E. The proposed grading and the proposed new single-family residence is compatible with
the immediate neighborhood character as the grading is to accommodate a residence
and on-site improvements which are consistent with homes found in the immediate area
and the proposed home is compatible with the neighborhood. More specifically, after the
completion of a Neighborhood Analysis the Commission finds that the proposed
residence, detached garage and associated grading are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood with respect to scale, architectural style, and setbacks. With regards to
building size and scale, the residence will be larger than the average size of residences
in the immediate area, however it will not be the largest home in the neighborhood, as
there is one residence within the immediate area that is larger than the proposed
residence. Furthermore, the proposed residence is designed in a manner, so as to
maintain the streetscape of the neighborhood by being notched into the existing slope
and maintaining a single -story configuration, as seen from the private road. With respect
to the project's compatibility with architectural style and materials in the area, the project
proposes a residence that is in line with the estate -like neighborhood character and
incorporates fagade treatments, roof design, and building materials that are
consistent with the custom homes within the immediate area. To address
incompatibility concerns with the roof design and roofing materials of the proposed
project, the project has been conditioned to require the use of "earth -tone" roofing
finishes and to specifically prohibit the use of white or other reflective finishes on the
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 3 of 11
E-20
roof of the proposed residence. In addition, the proposed residence is compatible
with homes in the neighborhood with respect to height as there are seventeen two-
story residences in the immediate area. In terms of the project's compatibility with lot
coverage conditions in the area, the proposed project complies with the maximum lot
coverage in the RS -2 zoning district (40%), as the project proposes lot coverage of
38.28%. Furthermore, a field survey of the surrounding neighborhood revealed that
many of the residential properties in the immediate neighborhood are at or near the
same lot coverage as the subject property.
F. The proposed grading does not involve a new residential tract or modifications to streets
or other public infrastructure, as all proposed grading activities will be conducted within
the existing subject property. Furthermore, the proposed grading does not impact natural
landscape or wildlife habitat, as an analysis determined that the subject property is not
within an environmentally sensitive area and does not contain any sensitive species. The
subject property is located within an existing residential tract and is zoned for the
development of a single-family residence.
G. The proposed grading conforms to the City's grading standards with regards to grading
on extreme slopes (35% or greater), as the residence and grading will be constructed on
a lot that was created prior to November 25, 1975, is zoned RS -2 (single-family
residential) and will not threaten public health, safety or welfare. In addition, the grading
does not create any slopes greater than 35%, and the project does not propose any fill
or cut on a slope that exceeds 50% gradient. As proposed, the height of retaining walls
for one (1) of the seven (7) proposed retaining walls conform to the City's grading
standards. Lastly, the project proposes to construct a new driveway that has a slope
which does not exceed 20%.
H. The proposed project includes both cut and fill in order to accommodate the proposed
residence on the existing lot. With regards to cut, the project proposes the deepest cut of
8'-6" along the easterly portion of the residence in order to remove an existing, elevated
landscape planter, which appears to be the result of previous grading on the lot. The
removal of the elevated landscape planter is reasonable and necessary in order to
further notch or recess the proposed residence into the slope. In terms of the proposed
fill, the project proposes the deepest fill of 8'-8" along the easterly side property, in the
vicinity of the proposed detached garage and patio area. The proposed fill in this area is
also a result of previous grading and is intended to accommodate the improvements and
to provide improved vehicle accessibility to the residence and garage areas as required
for emergency vehicles.
Although six (6) of the proposed retaining walls exceed the height standard for retaining
walls, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed walls are consistent with the
purpose of Municipal Code section 17.76.040 and is a reasonable development of the
land and such walls are typically found throughout the neighborhood due to the existing
sloping topography. More specifically, the proposed retaining walls will provide for an
improved and expanded roadway, greater accessibility around the perimeter of the
residence and support structures and improvements such as the detached garage, patio
areas and pool/spa. The proposed walls will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 4 of 11
E-21
to another property, as the City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and conditionally
approved the proposed project, and further review will be required to approve a soil
engineering report for the grading and retaining wall prior to building or grading permit
issuance. Furthermore, the City, prior to issuance of building permits, requires that the
structure and all retaining walls be engineered to meet the requirements of the building
code.
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. A copy of the Notice of Decision and
associated conditions of approval will be sent to the following adjacent property owners:
: 1) William I. Bronstein/ 3470 Via Campesina, 2) Barbara J. Sonne/ 3466 Via
Campesina, 3) Richard & Barbara Johnson/ 5383 Rollingridge Road, 4) Douglas
Trowbridge/5333 Rollingridge Road, 5) Ralph B. Allman/ 5335 Rollingridge Road, 6)
Mingho Chen/ 5325 Bayrdige Road 7) Frank J. & Macshara Susan Semelka/5329
Bayridge Road, 8) Cheng Chung & Helena Shen/5337 Bayridge Road, 9) Steve
Shiang/5345 Bayridge Road, and 10) George J. & Susan F. Kettel/ 5351 Bayridge Road.
Section 3: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to
the application for a Site Plan Review to allow for the construction of a 7,199 square foot
(attached and detached garage included), split-level residence and related site improvements:
A. The proposed residence and related improvements comply with development standards
established for the RS -2 zoning district for lots created prior to the City's incorporation.
More specifically, the project proposes a 38.28% lot coverage, which is below the
maximum 40% lot coverage allowed for an RS -2 zoned property. In addition, the
detached garage conforms to setback requirements in the RS -2 zone, as the detached
garage provides a 5'-0" setback to the easterly side property line, a 79'-0" setback to the
rear property line, and a 25'-0" setback to the front property line. In addition, the
proposed pool and spa conform to RS -2 setbacks as the pool provides a 56'-0" westerly
side yard setback, a 125'-0" easterly side yard setback and a 23'-0" setback to the rear
property line, as does the pool equipment. Lastly, the height of the proposed detached
garage will be 16'-0", as measured from the lowest preconstruction grade adjacent to the
foundation wall (93.86') to the ridge (elev. 109.86'). The height of the proposed detached
garage may be increased up to 16'-0" in height in that the Planning Commission finds
that the detached garage will have no significant impact on view from adjacent
properties based on a site assessment. More specifically, the Commission finds that the
homes along Bayridge Road are located at the top of an ascending slope, approximately
45-0" above the subject property, whereby the neighboring views are above the roofline
of the proposed detached garage. Furthermore, the view of neighboring properties at
5383 and 5335 Rollingridge Road are not impacted as these properties enjoy a view of
the ocean, shoreline, and Los Angeles basin, as observed from the rear of their
residences. Views from these properties are not impacted by the proposed detached
garage as the proposed detached garage would be constructed towards the front and
side of the subject property, where views of the ocean and city lights are not observed.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 5 of 11
E-22
Section 7: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal the project to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 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 April 11, 2017, 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 adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017-_;
conditionally approving a Grading Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the applicant to
demolish an existing 5,356 square foot single-family residence to accommodate the
construction of a new 7,199 square foot (attached and detached garage included), split-level,
residence with 1,889 cubic yards of associated grading subject to the Conditions of Approval in
the attached Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of April 2017, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSSALS:
ABSENT:
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Community Development Director
Secretary to the Planning Commission
David L. Tomblin,
Chairman
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 6 of 11
E-23
EXHIBIT'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00146
(5375 Rollingridge Road)
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 the date of this
approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of
its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities
thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other
actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or
adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not
limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"),
brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to
modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the
City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or
concerning the project.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040(C) of the RPVMC, 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. Any substantial 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.
6. 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.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 7 of 11
E-24
7. 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 and administrative citations as described
in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the
stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non-
conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non-
conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped
APPROVED plans.
12. 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.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to
the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting
from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by
the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be
provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will
minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's
Building Official.
14. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on 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. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations,
trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-
of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance
with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so,
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 8 of 11
E-25
the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to
approval by the building official.
Proiect Specific Conditions
15. This approval is for the following:
A. The demolition of the existing 5,356 square foot single-family residence.
B. The construction of a new 7,199 square foot, split-level, single-family residence
consisting of a 4,279 square foot upper floor, 2,184 square foot lower (ground)
floor, 484 square foot attached garage and a 252 square foot detached garage,
650 square feet of balcony area and an attached lanai.
C. Pool and Spa with equipment.
D. Improvements within the 25-0" road easement including, widening the private
road to 20'-0", construction of at -grade steps and landing, new driveway
approach and grading to construct new retaining wall, which varies in height from
2'-0" to 3'-7 '/Z".
E. 1,889 cubic yards of grading consisting of 939 cubic yards of cut and 948 cubic
yards of fill including 9 cubic yards of import.
F. Seven (7) retaining wails, as follows:
a. One (1) up-slope retaining wall within the front setback located along the
southerly property line and roadway, which ranges in height between 2'-0"
to 3'-7 1/2".
b. One (1) up-slope retaining wall within the front yard and westerly side
yard setbacks, which ranges in height from 1'-9" to 5-0"
c. One (1) down-slope retaining wall along the easterly property lines, which
ranges between 4'-0" to 8'-0".
d. One (1) up-slope retaining wall along the driveway and detached garage,
which ranges in height from 1'-0" to 3'-0"
e. Three (3) downslope retaining walls within the rear yard slope, which vary
in height between 1'- 5/8" to 8'-11".
16. The proposed retaining walls do not include a guardrail on top. Should a guardrail be
required, or installed on the subject property, additional Planning review and approval
shall be required for compliance with the City's combination wall height requirements.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 9 of 11
E-26
17. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project
shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (38.28% proposed).
18. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not
exceed 50%.
19. A minimum 3 -car garage shall be maintained (Attached 2 car garage and detached 1 car
garage proposed), 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.
20. 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.
21. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control
techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
22. Prior to building permit issuance and/or commencement of grading, whichever occurs
first, the applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route from the Director of Public Works.
23. 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. The height of the approved project shall be as depicted on the stamped approved plans
and in no case shall the maximum height of 15'-0" as measured from the average
elevation of the front setback line abutting the street of access (elev. 99.51') to the
highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 1145), and 26'-6", as measured from the lowest
finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 88.00') to the highest proposed roof
ridgeline (elev. 114.5'). The height of the proposed detached garage shall be 16-0", as
measured from the lowest preconstruction grade adjacent to the foundation wall (93.86')
to the proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 109.86'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof
sheathing inspection, based on the above mentioned instructions.
25. The approved residence shall maintain a 20'-0" front yard setback, an 5-0"' east side
yard setback, 26'-5" west side yard setback and a 40'-0" rear yard setback. BUILDING
SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or
civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
26. This approval is for a 7,199 square foot split-level residence, consisting of a 4,279
square foot upper floor, 2,184 square foot lower floor, a 484 square foot attached garage
and a 252 square foot detached garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to the
framing inspection.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 10 of 11
E-27
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. The roof of the residence shall not include any white or reflective finishes or coatings,
and shall consist of earth tone colors, finishes and materials deemed acceptable by the
Community Development Director.
29. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, the applicant shall submit complete
Landscape Plans to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Community
Development Director ensuring that the graded slopes are landscaped and retaining
walls screened with landscaping. The final approved landscaping shall be installed prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. Said plans may be required
to comply with the State of California Water Efficient Landscape requirements.
30. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting
property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30
calendar days shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in Section
17.56.050(C) of the Development Code.
31. All applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety Division,
shall be approved by the City's geologist prior to Building Permit issuance.
32. All mechanical equipment such as an air conditioner condenser and pool/ spa equipment
shall conform to Section 17.48.030(E)(5) of the RPVMC.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 11 of 11
E-28
- This page is part of your document - DO NOT DISCARD -
FFJ
n
EQU210
20170245881
II II IIIII IIIII IIIA IINI VIII VIII IIII VIII IIII VIII Illi IIII
Recorded/Filed in Official Records
Recorder's Office, Los Angeles County,
California
03/02/17 AT 11:14AM
FEES:
TAXES
OTHER
PAID:
IINIIIIIIIYI11IIIIIII&IIIIIIII1IVeIIIIIOIIIRIIIIIIIAIIIIIIIIInll11lllAllll
LEADSHEET
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
201703023260027
00013426646
IVIIRIIIIIIMNNIVIIBINVI
008178943
SEQ:
01
DAR - Counter (Upfront Scan)
inmuuimom�imiiauiimmua�uni�uimm
THIS FORM IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED
Pages:
0014
54.00
0.00
0.00
54.00
E-29
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
Ara Mihranian
Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Havdhome Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Exempt from recording charges
under Govemment Code S $103
0 10212017
*20170245881
(Space above this line reserved for Recorders use)
PROJECT: 5375 Rollingridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
APN: 7546005045
CONSTRUCTION AND ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
PROJECT: 5375 Rollingridge Road,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
APN: 7546005045
This CONSTRUCTION AND ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT is hereby made this /.341
day of February, 2017, by and between Barbara R. Johnson and Richard A. Johnson
("Grantor"); and Michael A. Olmos, ("Grantee"), Grantee and Grantor are individually
referred to as "Party" and are collectively referred to as the "Parties".
RECITALS
A. Grantor owns of record certain real property adjacent to Grantee's Property
located in Los Angeles County, and as described on the attached and incorporated Exhibit
A ("Grantor's Property"). Grantor holds an easement on certain real property located in Los
Angeles County and legally described on the attached and incorporated Exhibit D
("Easement Area").
B. Grantee owns of record certain real property adjacent to Grantor's Property
also located in Los Angeles County and legally described on the attached and incorporated
Exhibit B ("Grantee's Property") on which Grantee intends to demolish an existing single-
family residence and to construct a new single-family residence.
C. Grantee desires to construct a single-family residential home, in which certain
improvements will encroach on to the Easement Area. The encroaching improvements are
described herein as the "Project". The plans for the Project, including the encroachments,
are shows on the attached and incorporated Exhibit C.
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 1 of 13
E-30
D. Section 17.48.030 (F) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code states "no
construction of any structure or improvement is allowed within a legal easement without
written authorization from the legal holder of the easement. Such authorization shall be in a
form that can be recorded and shall be reviewed by the city attorney."
E. Grantor grants a Construction and Encroachment Agreement to Grantee for
the Project upon a portion of the Easement Area.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the promises,
covenants, and conditions herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
Recitals. The recitals are incorporated herein.
2. Construction and Encroachment Agreement. Grantor, for themselves and for their
successors and assigns, hereby convey and grant to Grantee, its successors and
assigns, an encroachment as described in Exhibit C (the "Project Plans") and non-
exclusive easement (the "Construction and Encroachment Agreement') over, under,
in, along, across and upon the property described on the attached and incorporated
Exhibit D (the "Easement Area") for use in the construction and installation of the
improvements and other construction purposes reasonably related to the
construction of the improvements described in Exhibit C (the "Project Plans"). Prior
to commencement of the Construction and Encroachment Agreement, Grantee shall
have access to the Easement Area during normal business hours to conduct all
studies, tests, examinations and surveys necessary to design and construct the
improvements.
3. Purpose of Easements, The above described Construction and Encroachment
Agreement is to be used for building, locating, constructing, improving, grading,
landscaping and other necessary work, including the operation of equipment, and
the movement of a work force, over, upon and across the described easement,
together with the right of ingress and egress.
4. Encroachment Agreement. Grantor grants to Grantee a license to construct the
Project on the Easement Area, subject to the terms of this Agreement.
Indemnification. The Grantor and Grantee shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims,
demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether
legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and
alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations,
mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the
City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 2 of 13
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any
of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or
concerning the Project.
General Provisions. The parties to this Agreement acknowledge and agree that the
easements and other rights conferred by this Agreement are intended to, and do,
constitute covenants that run with the land and shall insure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the parties and their respective grantees, heirs, successors and
assigns. Without limiting the foregoing, Grantor acknowledge that Grantee's rights
under this Agreement are assignable; that Grantee may enter into agreements to
sell or otherwise may transfer Grantee's Property, either to affiliates of Grantee or to
third parties, and that Grantor hereby consents to Grantee's assignment of all of its
right, title and interest and its delegation of all of its obligations created under this
Agreement upon any such the sale or transfer and, upon any such assignment.
Grantee understands that Grantor shall continue to have unrestricted ingress and
egress to Grantor's Property. In the even that such access needs to be restricted,
Grantee will notify and coordinate with Grantor 48 hours in advance. Upon Grantor's
acceptance of such restriction, it shall be restricted to no more than a six (6) hour
period. In the event of an emergency, Grantee understands that access cannot be
restricted. Nothing contained in this Section shall in any way be construed as
releasing Grantee's successors and assigns from any obligations to Grantor created
by this Agreement or to in any way limit Grantor's remedies at law or in equity as
against such successors and assigns.
7. Effective Date. This agreement shall be effective upon the date it is executed by an
authorized representative of each signing party.
8. Notice. Any notice to be given or other document or documents to be delivered to
either party by the other hereunder may be delivered in person or may be deposited
in the United States Mail in the State of California, duly registered or certified, with
postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:
To Grantor:
Barbara R. Johnson and Richard A. Johnson
5383 Rollingridge Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
To Grantee: With copy to:
Michael A. Olmos City of Rancho Palos Verdes
264 Paseo de Gracia Community Development Department
Redondo Beach, CA 90275 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 3 of 13
9. Grantor hereby warrants that they are the owners of the Easement Area described
above and that they have the right to grant Grantee, its successors or assigns,
permission to enter upon and use the Easement Area.
10. This Agreement is the result of negotiations between the Parties hereto. This
Agreement is intended by the Parties as a final expression of their understanding
with respect to the matters herein, and is a complete and exclusive statement of the
terms and conditions thereof,
11, This Agreement shall not be changed, modified, or amended except upon the
written consent of the parties hereto.
12. This Agreement supersede any and all other prior agreements or understandings,
oral or written, in connection therewith.
13. Grantors, their assigns and successors in interest, shall be bound by all the terms
and conditions contained in this Agreement, and all the Parties thereto shall be
jointly and severally liable thereunder in accordance with Civil Code Section 1468.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 4 of 13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor and the Grantee have caused this Agreement to
be executed the day and year first above written.
GRANTOR
Barbara R. Johnson ano Richard A. Johnson
By:
Barbara R. Johnson
By: LU�L-4 A L44"
Richard A. Johnso
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 5 of 13
ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of C li r n r.a.
County of L2.5 s
On februasN /�.dor? before me, jaQnne LV»rr Mc&ZeheP, N TCvrl
Dat Name, Title of Offs er
personally appeared batbarak R. .To h n So n a td
2r +lUrcf A. Fohi5oi,
NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed
the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State identified herein, that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
Witness my hand and official seal.
JdM LVN IMC ACE HEN
ad 43 ,il'4 - ` ti ,-.• WvAk N • 2113514
Signature of Notary ft" os Arqftsciit
Mn H
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 6 of 13
-- E-35 ----- -
GRANTEE
Michael A. Olmos
Y
Michael A. Olmos
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 7 of 13
ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of hyr n 14
County of L�o 5 Aaae, le, 3
Onr_„h,fsARv!► before me, _`OannG t+ ynn MLEG{cAiet,, IV*rj P<--
Oate Name—, Title of Officer
personally appeared _ dic.hae,f A. 01w o„-�
NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed
the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
Instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State identified herein, that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Sign ure of Notary
jaNE LININ i2iA0*14
Commotion / 2143514
Notuy Pubkc - Cukomo
Lot Amp *$ County
M Comm, I Me I 2020
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 8 of 13
_-----E-37
Exhibit "A"
Grantor's Property
5383 Rollingridge Rd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
APN: 7546005018
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 9 of 13
E-38
Exhibit "B"
Legal Description for Grantee's Property
Property commonly known as 5375 Rollingridge Rd., Rancho Palos Verdes
(APN: 7546-005-045) and legally described as:
THOSE PORTTONS OF LOT H OF THE RANCHO LOS PAIRS
VERDES ALLOTTED TO JOTHAN BDCBY BY DECREE OF
PARTTHON IN THE ACTION "BD03Y ET AL, VS. BENT, ET AL",
CASE NO. 2373, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE 17TH
JUl`?TCIAL DISTRICT, OF SAID STATE OF CAU FORNIA IN AND
FOR SAID COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND ENTERED IN BOOK
4 PAGE 57 OF JUDGIatFNTS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN
COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1. BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY
LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO LLOYD J.
MOORE AND WIFE, RECORDED IN BOOK 20718 PAGE 120 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, THAT IS DISTANT
SOUTH 73 DEGREES 51' 25" EAST 240.00 FEET; ALONG SAID
SOITiHERLY LINE FROM THE MOST MTM"ERLY CORNER Of
THE LAND DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED; THENCE ALONG SAID
SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 73 DEGREES 51' 25" EAST 140,00
FEET AND SOUTH 88 DEGREES 36 00" EAST 103.00 FEET
Tt E;NCE SOUTH 2 63.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
THE LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL, l OF THE DEED TO JOHN H.
BALL~ ET AL., RECORDED SEPTEMBER 7,1948 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 475 TN BOOK 28174 PAGE 120 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE LAST
HDMONED SOUTHERLY LINE WEST 237.45 FEET TO A LINE,
WHICH BEARS SOUTH FROM THE POTNIT OF BEGINNING
THE4CE NORTH 305.31 FEET TO TETE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 10 of 13
E-39
Exhibit "C"
Project Plans
tD WIDENING OF ROAD TO 20'
\`l DRIVEWAY
l� ENTRY STEPS/LANDINGS
RETAINING WALL (42" MAX HEIGHT)
O
SUBJECT PROPERTY
w 5375 ROLLING RIDGE ROAD
S RANCHO PALOS VEAIDES, CA 90275
g
0
2
10' EASEMENT FOR CALIFORNIA
GAS COMPANY PER PARCEL
MAP 6515. MB 81/29-30.
25' EASEMENT FOR ROAD, NSO' 00' 00"W 237.45
UTILITIES, AND BRIDLE TRAIL PER
PARCEL MAP 6515, MB 81/29-30
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 11 of 13
Exhibit "D"
Easement Area
PARCEL 2. AN EASEMENT FOR ROAM PURPOSES, TO BE
USED IN COMMON WITH OTHERS, OVER A STRIP OF LAND 50
FEET WiD►E, LYING 25.00 FEET, MEASURED AT RIGHT
ANGLES, ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
CNECER LINE; BEGINNING ATTHE SOUTHEASTERLY
CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO WALTER
REESE, RECORDED IN BOOK 21079 PAGE 93 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF SAID COUN'T'Y; THENCE ALONG T[IE EASTERLY
LINE OF SAID LAND,NORTH 16 DEGREES 20" 30" WEST 616.23
FEET TO THE SOITI REASTERLY LINE OF VIA CAMPESINA.
THE SIDE LINE OF SAID EASEMM TO BE EXTENDED OR
SHORTENED TO TERMINATE NORTT-TERLY IN THE
SOLMISAST RLY LINE OF SAID VIA CAMPESINA AND
SOUTEERLY IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LAND
DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO JOHN H. BALL, ET AL.
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 12 of 13
E-41
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 7,1948 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 475 IN
BOOK 7.8174 PAM 1213 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 3. AND bkSEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES TO BE
USED IN COMMON WMA OTHERS OVER A STRIP OF LAND 25
FEET WIDE, SAID 25 FOOT STRIP BEING DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS; BEGINNM AT THE SOVMEASIERLY CORNER
OF THE LAND DESCRMED IN DEED TO WALTER REESE,
RECORDED IN BOOK 21074 PAGE 43 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUi'HERLY ALONG A CURVE
TANGENT TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED
IN SAID DEED TO RMSE, CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A
RADIUS Of 90 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57
DEGREES GIS+ A DISTANCE OF 89.69 FEET, THENCE TANGENT
TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 40 DEGREES 45' 30" WEST 194.78 FEET
TO THE BFATNNNO OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO
THENORT -IWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 100 FEET, W1 - R
CURVE IS ALSO TANGENTTO O THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE
LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL I OF rrIE REED TO JOHN R
BALI. ET AL, RECORDED DEPTF.MBER 7, IM IN BOOK 28174
PAGE: 120 OF OFFIC AL WORDS, THENMSOUTHWESTERLY
ALONG SAID CURVE 85.94 FEET TO SAID SOU MnY LINE„
T '4CE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY UNE WEST 506.40 FEET
MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE LAND
DESCRIBED ABOVE IN PARCEL NO. 1, OF THIS DESCRIPTION,
THENCE AED NG THE EASTERLY LIVE OF THE LAND
DEED IN PARCEL I HEREINABOVE, NORTH 25.00 FEET ,
THENCE PARALLELWI H SAID soun IERLY LINE, EAST
506.40 FEET, MORE OR KESS TO THE BEQIVNIVG OF A
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORDfWEST, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 75.00 FEET', SAO) CURVE BEING CONCETMC
WnM THAT CURVE DESCRIBED ABOVE AS HAVING A
RADIUS OF 100 FEET TIENCE NORTHEASTERLY LOM SAID
CURVE 64.46 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE DISTANT
NORTHWESTERLY 25.00 FEET FROM THAT COURSE
DESCRIBED ABOVE AS HAVING A BEARING AND LENGTH OF
"SOUTH 40 DEGREES 45'30" WEST 194.78 FEET" THEWS
ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, NORTH 40 UEOREES 45'30"
EAST 194.78 FEET TO THE BEGINNM OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 65 FEET SAID
CURVE BEING CONCENTRIC W Hi THAT CURVE DESCRIBED
ABOVE AS HAVING A RADIUS OF 90 FEET; THWCE
NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 57 DEGREES 06" A DISTANCE OF 64.78 FEET;
THENCE PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND
DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED TO REM NORTH 16 DEGREES 211'
30" WEST TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LAND
DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED TO Rte• THENCE ALONG SAI)
SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH $8 DEGREhi 57 00" FAST 25.92
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Construction and Encroachment Agreement
Page 13 of 13
-E-42
'rxv�
amm"Llwl
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
E-43
Date: March 28, 2017
From: George Shen
5337 Bayridge Rd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
To: Octavio Silva, Associate Planner,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Building Plan of 5375 Rolling Ridge Rd. Rancho Palos Verdes
Comment:
We want to make sure the building concerned is of red the roof, to be compatible with neighborhood.
Our house looks down this new house, all buildings insight all have red the roofs.
.Zn �df��`s�t, A'(t /,/,- �'od1G J1 �+- �5 74c, 4e G2 rC , a {ter,-� V `f --
/tv
6j
r
Ni i
E-44
Octavio Silva
From: Sophie Shiang <sshiang@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Cc: Steve Shiang
Subject: Olmos Residence roofline impact on 5345 Bayridge Residence
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
good afternoon Mr. Silva,
thank you for discussing with me our concerns this morning.
below please find my updated written concern.
we truly appreciate your attention to this matter.
regards,
Sophie
hi Mr. Silva,
thank you for coming out to the site to review our concern regarding Olmos Residence roofline impact on our
Bayridge Residence.
as we discussed, we have a concern regarding the proposed higher roof line, such that it significant truncates
and obstructs the view of the historical landmark "The Bird Of Paradise" home designed by Lloyd Wright . this
impacts us from across the span of the ground floor of our home, which we devoted our life savings to build
since 2012. the proposed roof will obstruct not only portions of the PV Golf Course, it will hinder The Bird of
Paradise view from our kitchen, from our especially created seating niche with picture -frame windows to view
this structure, as well as from our deck designed with an outdoor fountain, fire pit, and BBQ areas, all
purposefully designed for enjoying view of this structure. our neighbors to the east of the Bayridge
Rd have voiced similar concern as well.
i have submitted to you a disc today, the first 14 photos of which, along with the photos you took from our
kitchen window, that show some of this impact.
our second critical concern relates to neighborhood compatibility considering the view from above, our
second floor. as we have invested our entire design process and savings to bring to fruition our master suite,
we are extremely worried and oppose the roof lay out of the Olmos residence were it to contain any unsightly
hardware, color scheme or reflective surface, such as solar panel for example, as this would ruin the beautiful
view of this unique, natural RPV landscape.
E-45
the last 30 photos on the disc showcase the serene RPV view for most of the residents above the Olmos' very
expansive property, whose roof line is so huge it directly imposes on several consecutive Bayridge Rd residents
as they look out yonder into the Eucalyptus Grove of Valmonte, the beautiful surrounding red the rooftops
blended into the verdant treetops, and out onto the South Bay coast line. the potential impact of this massive
rooftop would be akin to an unearthly, extraterrestrial encumbrance upon the natural pastoral presence of
this humble neighborhood; it would sacrifice the simple joyful earthly vistas of many residents of RPV for the
personal pleasure and gain of one,
will you kindly advise?
sophie and Steve shiang
E-46
troms ofts I I
171
E�
s
��. .
�3
�� .-
•� � '
i
.�
, . � k �
� ��' �
�
. ■�� .
\.• ��
\�
.
.
—""Waft"
:
nye
.
*�
y )
.
�IFF » 4
1�
i
e r`�
March 16, 2017
CITVOF LiRANCHOPALOSVERDES
NOTICE
COMMUNI I Y [XVFI of IMI-I`I I I U AR I MFN_1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, April 11, 2017, at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park Community
Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes to consider the following:
GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY (CASE NO. ZON2016-00176): A request demolish an existing
split level residence and garage in order to construct a new 7,199 square -foot
(attached and detached garage included), split level residence on a "down-slope"
lot. The height of the proposed residence will be 15', as measured from the
average elevation of the setback line abutting the street of access (elev. 99.51') to
the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 1145), and 26'-6", as measured from
the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 88.00') to the highest
proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 114.5'). The height of the proposed detached garage
will be 16'-0", as measured from the lowest preconstruction grade adjacent to the
foundation wall (93.86') to the ridge (elev.109.86'). The applicant also proposes
1,887 cubic yards of grading, consisting 939 cubic yards of cut, 948 cubic yards of
fill, and 9 cubic yards of import to accommodate the proposed residence.
LOCATION: 5375 Rollingridge Road
PROPERTY OWNER: Michael A. Olmos
APPLICANT: Jeff A. Dhal
Pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), this project
requires a finding of "Neighborhood Compatibility." In making such a finding, the City will review
the proposed project relative to the following criteria for the immediate neighborhood: 1) scale of
surrounding residences; 2) architectural style and materials; and 3) property -line setbacks.
If you have any comments or concerns about the proposed project, please communicate those
thoughts in writing to Octavio Silva, Associate Planner, by 4:30 PM on Friday, March 31, 2017.
By doing so, you will ensure that your comments are taken into consideration for the Staff analysis
of the project. Please note that written materials, including emails, submitted to the City are public
records and may be posted on the City's website. In addition, City meetings may be televised
and may be accessed through the City's website. Accordingly, you may wish to omit personal
information from your oral presentation or written materials as it may become part of the public
record regarding an item on the agenda.
A temporary frame structure (silhouette) has been constructed on the project site outlining the
height and bulk of the proposed project. This frame will be in place throughout the duration of the
public comment period to better assist you and the City in assessing any potential project impacts.
Only those who have submitted written comments will receive notification of the decision.
309a0 HAw 1*1101M f3(vo / 1Lmclio PAI ms VFRDFS, CA 90275-5391
PLArtl'ff'IG & (WE RO U LMEN r DIV1,1,10N (310) 544.5228 / B IIL DINU & SArE 11 DIVISON (310) 265-7800 / DEPT FAX, (310) 5445?o3
L -MAIL PEANNINGORPWAOOV/ wwWRPV(:AU)V E-64
Wik
f
e
3%
At I
to
� wr
" IV 4
14
4S
4t W,
3%
.,.
� �,� - � '
sx '. 2 � � r
• Oct,
r 6 `k
j •w
V. ilk
i 0.
j� a, -
IA
;JL
FII
f
�•�� �Y~ � } � / rya._ •_
�;1
�" -. '
� �P'-
< ' l
�� .. t � - -
�: : -
_ + k
y , Air.
� ��•
ii _ !
� "' _ `�i ii f�
I`y�ii«
7�'�S5 - iii .d
�, � f -`/4 �.riaie
1 a.r �. .
•'�' ref aw+
.. R � ~ �� A.Y..at,
' .n:aaxa.r
� R a� �
y � � wiRau�
i• y , � y�, f , i. _ ,
y, 4
,� _. IE
n i'f1Ri-rt-���� �.
i��rl v
d f*
f
1 -
-
y 4
I � 1
5
n i'f1Ri-rt-���� �.
i��rl v
lq�
N.
tl
Ar.
r.
N.
tl
Ar.
E-81
E-83
1
F
i• :
"n'.
.Lallo
71
t
FE
$ ' F� T
'��;� o
,+��
,.�
�_ .• ,
i
o0
' ._' Y'- d�ipp 0
i i
j
a '� �� \ ��4, •
f��l ,�'
✓.
t y` ��'
1,� Y y,
,j 4.
�• w
� •f
...
n j
:; � .,{pug`
�'�, �h,. may; !"., �4' ,t
�� ,„ix
i 1 �• ♦4. J • Ii.1 °� I ��•f � -
Octavio Silva
From: Sue <sue@fulbrightdental.com>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:24 AM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: Neighborhood compatibility. Case # ZON2016-00176
Good Morning Octavio,
Thank you for reviewing the proposed plans for 5375 Rollingridge Rd. with me on Wed. 3-29. As we discussed, I live
directly above 5375 Rollingridge Rd. My concern with the proposed style is bulk and mass especially the large flat roof
we would be looking down at. Flat roofs are very unattractive. All the other homes in our view have pretty tile roofs with
the exception of the landmark Lloyd Wright "Bird of Paradise" house. The flat roof of the detached garage blocks our
view of that house. If it were pitched it would not.
The 2nd concern I have is the proposed retaining wall adjoining our properties. My husband and I have plans to
landscape our slope. We plan to put a path in so we can take our bikes down to cycle and walk around the golf course.
Would it be possible to incorporate an opening so we are able to do that? We would be willing to help with any
additional costs to do that.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan MacShara- Semelka
My husband may have his own concerns he may want to address. He has not had an opportunity to see the plans yet.
Sent from my iPhone
E-90
s
0
Ottavio Silva
From: Susan Macshara-Semelka <frankensue2@gmai1.com>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 1:31 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: Case ZON2016-00176
Dear Mr. Silva,
My address is 5329 Bayridge Road. I live immediately adjacent to 5375 Rollingridge Rd. Case number ZON2016-00176. I
have several neighborhood compatibility concerns with the proposed structure:
1) The bulk and mass of the structure is completely inconsistent with the neighborhood. For example, I was forced to
redesign my 3600 sq ft house numerous times because it was asserted to be too bulky and massive. My project was
subjected to 3 consecutive unanimous rejections by the Planning Commission, but then ultimately unanimously
approved by the RPV City Council. After 5 years of legal wrangling, I was forced to build at the height of the worst
economic crisis since the great Depression, when Capital was completely unavailable, or lose RPV Approval. It is
incomprehensible that a 6300 sq ft house right next door to me could be considered compatible by any defensible logic.
2) The huge flat roof is completely inconsistent with the neighborhood architectural style, which is largely red tile roofs.
Not only does the extensive bulk and mass of the proposed project block key elements of my view, the roof is a hideous
eyesore which will detract from my enjoyment of the view and degrade my property value.
3) 1 have significant concerns about the algorithm used to calculate the lot elevation relative to that which was used to
calculate mine. My flat lot elevation ended up being assessed significantly below where it actually was before I was
forced to grade down and incorporate 10 staircases in my project as a result. I filed that complaint during construction of
my home after multiple surveys, but it was never resolved. I insist on being provided a detailed comparison of the
calculation of this lot elevation relative to that used for mine and field proof that they are consistent.
Speaking as a 21 year resident, it is long past time to for the City of RPV to put a stop to its Planning Commission's
subjective assessment of property improvement projects at the time of proposal. Rules must be clear, unambiguous,
and forced to be revealed during real estate transactions.
My legal team and I eagerly await explanation of how these concerns are incorporated into the approval process for this
project. Please confirm receipt of this email which is within the specified timeframe for consideration.
Sincerely,
Frank Semelka
E-94
Octavio Silva
From: Susan Macshara-Semelka <frankensue2@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 5:08 PM
To: Octavio Silva
Subject: Re: RE:
Octavio, my concern with the retaining wall is that it will be used to enable a parking lot. Despite the fact that somehow
similar area have been approved by the Planning Commission, for such areas, there is no information in my deed or
zoning that says the private access road could be turned into a parking lot. I have significant concerns about, noise,
traffic, and crime. That is a private concealed area with direct access to the back of my home. How is the City of RPV
going to protect my home from increase crime risk? How is the City going to compensate me when this crime occurs as a
direct result of an undocumented zoning change. Speaking as someone who has been robbed multiple times, and
emphasizing that was a key rationale for moving to our current location, we find this proposed addition completely
unacceptable. Please address this in your review and how the city proposes to protect/compensate me for the increased
risk. Please note, this is a continuation of the dialog, you have had with my wife on this subject, which was brought up
before the deadline. I also find the deadline of a few days unreasonable to provide concerns on a project of this
significance to us. We all have other things going on in our lives, including jobs.
Sincerely,
Frank Semelka
On Mar 31, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
> Hello Frank,
> I received your email and comments, which will be presented to the Planning Commission as public record. In order for
Staff to better assess your concerns, it is possible for me to visit our property next Monday, April 4th? I am available in
the morning.
> Thank you,
> Octavio Silva
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susan Macshara-Semelka [mailto:frankensue2@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 1:31 PM
> To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
> Subject:
> Dear Mr. Silva,
> My address is 5329 Bayridge Road. I live immediately adjacent to 5375 Rollingridge Rd. Case number ZON2016-00176.
have several neighborhood compatibility concerns with the proposed structure:
> 1) The bulk and mass of the structure is completely inconsistent with the neighborhood. For example, I was forced to
redesign my 3600 sq ft house numerous times because it was asserted to be too bulky and massive. My project was
subjected to 3 consecutive unanimous rejections by the Planning Commission, but then ultimately unanimously
approved by the RPV City Council. After 5 years of legal wrangling, I was forced to build at the height of the worst
E-95
economic crisis since the great Depression, when Capital was completely unavailable, or lose RPV Approval. It is
incomprehensible that a 6300 sq ft house right next door to me could be considered compatible by any defensible logic.
> 2) The huge flat roof is completely inconsistent with the neighborhood architectural style, which is largely red tile
roofs. Not only does the extensive bulk and mass of the proposed project block key elements of my view, the roof is a
hideous eyesore which will detract from my enjoyment of the view and degrade my property value.
> 3)l have significant concerns about the algorithm used to calculate the lot elevation relative to that which was used to
calculate mine. My flat lot elevation ended up being assessed significantly below where it actually was before I was
forced to grade down and incorporate 10 staircases in my project as a result. I filed that complaint during construction of
my home after multiple surveys, but it was never resolved. I insist on being provided a detailed comparison of the
calculation of this lot elevation relative to that used for mine and proof that they are consistent.
> Speaking as a 21 year resident, it is long past time to for the City of RPV to put a stop to its Planning Commission's
subjective assessment of property improvement projects at the time of proposal. Rules must be clear, unambiguous,
and forced to be revealed during real estate transactions.
> My legal team and I eagerly await explanation of how these concerns are incorporated into the approval process for
this project.
> Sincerely,
> Frank Semelka
N
E-96
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda item):
Noel Weiss reported on the progress of the potential Green Hills S lement Agreement,
and his feelings that the City Council has not shown an ability to ose the deal. In terms
of a previous decision regarding Green Hills, and whe/orooftop interments would
eventually be allowed at Inspiration Slope, he pointedpiration Slope is in Area
2 that never included any provision in the Master Plainterments. He did not
think it was appropriate for Green Hills to segway intf entitlement without an
amendment to the Master Plan.
Sharon Loveys expressed her disappointment w' the Commission's decision regarding
Green Hills at their last meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of the March 28 20 Minutes
Commissioner Nelson noted aa on page 17 of the Minutes.
Vice Chairman Cruikshan moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded
by Commissioner Nelso . Approved, (6-0).
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Gradinq Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-00176): 5375
Rollingridge Road
Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the proposed
project and showing drawings of the proposed floor plan and elevations. He reviewed the
proposed grading, and the need for the cut and fill on the property. He stated that as part
of the public notice process Staff received a number of public comments expressing
concerns with view, height, roof style, and neighborhood compatibility. In regards to the
roof style, he noted that within the twenty closest homes the roof styles vary and include
gable to flat roofs. He stated the proposed project has been conditioned to utilize roofing
materials which resemble earth -tone colors to minimize visual impacts to the neighbors.
He stated that neighbors at 5329 and 5345 Bayridge Road had concerns with view
impairment, however he showed photos taken from these residences indicating that Staff
felt the proposed project caused no significant view impairment from these homes. He
stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed project
as conditioned in the staff report.
Commissioner Nelson asked why homes on Bayridge Road were not included in Staffs
neighborhood compatibility analysis with regards to the twenty closest homes.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 2016
Page 2
F-1
Associate Planner Silva explained that Staffs neighborhood compatibility assessment of
the twenty closest homes is done with regards to homes in the same zoning district. The
subject property is in the RS -2 zone and the homes along Bayridge Road are in the RS -
5 zoning district.
Director Mihranian added that this neighborhood compatibility process of assessing the
twenty closes properties in the same zoning district is codified in the Municipal Code.
Director Mihranian asked if the Commissioners would indicated whether or not they had
performed a site visit of the subject property. All Commissioner's had visited the property.
Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing.
Jeffrey Dahl (architect) explained one of the most critical issues for this project was Fire
Department access, and the Fire Department will not approve the project until the
driveway is brought into compliance. He discussed the design process for the basement,
and explained how works with the existing topography. In designing the home he
explained how the amount of grading was minimized at the site. He stated he was
available for any questions.
Commissioner Nelson asked what the Fire Department required for the minimum width
of the road.
Mr. Dahl answered that the Fire Department required a minimum 20 foot width
Commissioner Nelson noted that the resident to the east of the subject property has
widened the road for his project, and asked Mr. Dahl if he would be willing to increase the
road width to match what was done by the neighbor to the east.
Mr. Dahl noted that he will be going into a hillside to widen the road and he was concerned
that widening the road too much might cut into the critical slope of the property.
Commissioner James stated that from the properties on Bayridge Road above, there
seems to be a lot of public concern regarding the proposed flat roof, as not matching the
Mediterranean style of other homes in the neighborhood. He asked if there was
something that could be done about that, and if there was some reason a flat roof was
chosen.
Mr. Dahl replied that a crushed stone on the roof will help with the look of the roof. He
noted that most of the surrounding homes are not red tile roofs, but rather slate, shingle,
or some other type of material. He stated that from the properties above, most of the roof
will be hidden in the trees. He explained that the flat roof was chosen because it is part
of the contemporary style of the home.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 2016
Page 3
F-2
Commissioner James referred to a power point slide showing the proposed grading and
asked if the blue area on the slide was fill that was a result of prior grading, as he felt this
was Staff's justification for meeting a certain code requirement.
Mr. Dahl responded that the fill was not a result of prior grading. He stated that the driving
force behind the cut and fill started with the driveway. He explained that the driveway has
to come up several feet from where it current is, and the driveway wouldn't work without
pulling the garage up high enough to keep that slope at the maximum gradient that is
allowed by the Fire Department. He noted that most of the earth work will stay on site.
Susan MacShara (5329 Bayridge Rd.) stated her home is directly above the proposed
garage. She stated that her main objection to this proposed project is the bulk and mass
of the large flat roof, and the flat roof maximizes the bulk and mass of the structure. She
noted that even though the homes on Bayridge are not considered in the neighborhood
compatibility analysis, they are the ones most affected because they look down on the
property. She stated the flat roof will be a prominent feature in her immediate view and
will have an impact on her enjoyment of the view. She was also concerned with view
impairment if trees are planted along the proposed retaining wall and noted that the 15
foot garage will block her view of the Lloyd Wright Bird of Paradise home on Via
Campesina.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank referred to Ms. MacShara's written comments that were
submitted as part of the staff report. He noted there are comments requesting an opening
be provided in the proposed retaining wall to accommodate a path that they would use to
take bicycles down to ride around the golf course, and asked Ms. MacShara to explain
the comment.
Ms. MacShara noted the area on the aerial photo and requested that area be landscaped
so that it can be used as path.
Commissioner James noted that Ms. MacShara objected to the flat roof because it
accentuates the bulk and mass, however if the roof were to be a pitched roof her views
of the Lloyd Wright house would be blocked even more. He asked the speaker if a pitched
roof would be better or worse for her.
Ms. MacShara answered that if she had to choose one or the other, she would prefer not
to have the massive flat roof below her.
Frank Semelka (5329 Bayridge Road) stated he and his wife purchased their home
primarily based on the view and setting. He described the view as consisting of the
coastline, golf course, Mediterranean homes below and a country road. He felt the new
proposed home threatens the tranquility they enjoy from their home. He did not feel it
was possible to define a structure which maximizes apparent bulk and mass as more than
a cuboid. He stated this proposed structure, which resembles a large box warehouse,
will be dominate from nearly every room in his home. He felt the architectural style could
not be further from that of the existing neighborhood, and noted there is not one flat roof
Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 2016
Page 4
F-3
in the immediate neighborhood. He felt a very large, thoughtfully designed home fitting
the architectural style of the neighborhood would be easily achievable on this lot. He
stated that the one flat roof at 3330 Via Campesina has a flat roof, but is 7/10 of a mile
away and is discretely tucked into the hillside. He stated that proposed structure does
not belong in the neighborhood and upends the rural charm of the neighborhood.
Chairman Tomblin asked Mr. Semelka if he would have the same objections if this home
had a pitched, red tile type of roof.
Mr. Semelka answered he would not object to such a roof. He stated that the applicants
may have to sacrifice high ceilings or make some other concessions, but everyone has
to do that when designing a new home, just as he did when he built his home.
Ge_oLge Shen stated his home is directly above the proposed home. He felt the design is
beautiful if it were a standalone home, but it does not fit in this neighborhood. He
distributed photos to the Commission that were taken by a professional photographer
from his rear yard. He felt the photo shows that this is a beautiful neighborhood below,
but the proposed house will ruin the view of the neighborhood.
Sigrid Allman stated she lives directly to the east of the subject property. She felt it was
unfair that people can't build something that is somewhat compatible. She discussed
how trees are blocking her view of the coastline, so she felt she understood the neighbor's
concerns. However, she pointed out that their views won't be blocked, they just don't like
looking at the large roof below them.
Chairman Tomblin asked Mrs. Allman if she was in favor of the proposed structure.
Mrs. Allman answered that she was in favor of the proposed design and structure.
Ralph Allman explained how, when he built his home, he was required by the Fire
Department to widen the road. He noted that with the wider road and retaining wall that
he built a fire truck can now get through, even if a car is parked on the street. He stated
that a fire truck cannot pass in front of the subject property with the narrow road. He
supported earth -tone colors on the flat roof and felt there would be a way to make the roof
very pleasant to view from above. He pointed out that Rollingridge Road is a private road
and all of the residents pay to maintain that road. He felt that to grant access to the
residents above to that road was dangerous because of security issues. He stated he
was in support of the proposed project.
Commissioner James asked staff if the private road has anything to do with what the
Commission is considering with this project.
Director Mihranian answered that, aside from the grading to expand the width of the road,
the private road is not part of the project.
Chairman Tomblin asked Staff if the Fire Department will be requiring a new fire hydrant.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 2016
Page 5
F-4
Associate Planner Silva answered that a new hydrant is not being required.
Bill Gerstner stated that after viewing the plans and the silhouette, he did not have a
problem with the proposed house. He pointed out that this neighborhood was, at one
time, primarily 1,800 to 2,000 square foot ranch style homes with cedar shake roofs. This
neighborhood is now transitioned to mostly larger, Mediterranean style, homes. He
recognized the neighbors above will not like looking down at a larger roof, but pointed out
this is a different zone which allows for much larger homes. In regards to the road, he
clarified that the road is actually part of each of the properties so each property owner
owns the section of road in front of their house. He stated each property owner grants
specific easements for access to each other to use the road. He recalled something in
the deed restrictions that states they cannot expand the use of the road and allow it to
service additional properties.
Commissioner Emenhiser recalled approving the addition to Mr. Gerstner's house, and
asked how big of an addition was approved.
Mr. Gerstner answered that two additional structures to a 2,500 square foot house were
approved, making a total of approximately 6,500 square feet. He stated that the Planning
Commission approved flat roofs and he intends to use river rocks and flat stones on the
roof. He explained his intent was to use these same stones in the landscaping so that
when looking from above there would be consistency.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Gerstner if he had any other opinions regarding this
project.
Mr. Gerstner reminded the Commission that when doing neighborhood compatibility the
guidelines state it is by zoning district, and this neighborhood is zoned RS -2, while the
Bayridge Road neighborhood is zoned RS -5, and the two neighborhoods are very
different. He did not think the Commission could make a comparison between the two
neighborhoods. In regards to bulk and mass, he could not remember a time when he
was a Planning Commissioner when the Commission ever considered bulk and mass
when looking down on a home. Typically mass and bulk was considered because the
home rose up and towered over the street or a neighboring home. He felt there were
ways to adjust the finish of the roof by utilizing color and tone of the roof to better blend
in with other roofs. He also suggested working with the roof so that some type of shadow
is cast on parts of it to help it appear smaller.
Commissioner Nelson stated that he saw no problem with the roof as proposed, and
asked Mr. Gerstner if he saw any potential problems.
Mr. Gerstner stated that he had no problem with the roof, noting this is a downslope lot
and the roof is below the road level. He added that it is unique to a property where the
road elevation is over 20 feet above the subject lot. The views of the upslope neighbors
cannot possibly be obstructed by any structure placed on this lot under any circumstances
Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 2016
Page 6
F-5
because of the topography difference. He added that a lot of the properties in this City
look down on dozens or even hundreds of roofs and when he was on the Planning
Commission he did not recall ever hearing a conversation regarding the character of any
of those roofs from any of the uphill houses.
Jeffrey Dahl (in rebuttal) showed an area on the proposed grading plan where a large
amount of cut has taken place. He also referred to the front and rear elevations, and
noted that there is already terracing of the roof proposed, noting some of it is subtle and
some of it is not so subtle. Finally, he noted there were comments from the neighbors
that this house doesn't fit into the neighborhood, however they want to preserve their view
of the Lloyd Wright house, which he felt was the most uniquely designed house in Palos
Verdes Estates and the design does not in any way fit into the neighborhood.
Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Dahl if he had any comments on how he could break up
the flat appearance of the roof, either with color or texture.
Mr. Dahl responded that having a grave texture on the roof will definitely help, especially
with the proposed terracing of the roof. He noted the terracing will pick up shadow lines
from one terrace to the next. He also pointed out that the upslope neighbors are not
looking directly down at the house, so they will also be seeing the parapets.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Dahl what color or colors he was considering for the
roof.
Mr. Dahl answered that he was looking at a terra cotta tone, which he felt was the best
for the people above. He felt this would blend in with the roof next door, as well as the
roofs in Palos Verdes Estates.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if any mechanical equipment will be placed on the roof.
Mr. Dahl answered that there will be no mechanical equipment placed on the roof.
Director Mihranian added that the Code does not allow mechanical equipment to be
placed on the roof.
Chairman Tomblin asked Staff if there was a condition of approval that the color of the
roof is to match, as closely as possible, the rest of the neighborhood.
Director Mihranian referred to Condition No. 28 which requires the roof to be of earth
toned materials deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director.
Chairman Tomblin felt that language should be added that the roof match the other roofs
and be of a terra cotta coloring.
Chairman Tomblin asked about the use of solar panels on the roof.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 2016
Page 7
F-6
Mr. Dahl stated that solar panels are always a possibility, but the owners have not decided
whether or not that is an option.
Chairman Tomblin asked Staff about the City's Code in regards to solar panels.
Director Mihranian answered that the City Code permits roof -mounted solar panels,
noting there is actually very little regulation in the Code as solar panels are regulated by
the State.
Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing.
Commissioner James stated he has concerns with the Code sections more so than with
the house. He referred to page 11 of the staff report and the discussion of grading. He
asked Staff to explain their justification to allow a variance from the limitation on cut or fill.
Director Mihranian explained that the findings established in the Grading Code are
guidelines and there are minimum design standards established when reviewing grading.
The way the findings are established allows for deviation from the design standards
provided specific findings are made. In regards to the application before the Commission,
the lot has already been graded to accommodate the current house on the property. When
considering what is reasonable to accommodate the proposed development, Staff
supports the proposed grading even though it exceeds some of the standards listed in
the findings. He explained the proposed grading is to raise the pad to reduce the
steepness of the driveway for emergency access and it allows the structure to be notched
into the hillside which minimizes the visual impact of the house. He stated Staff is looking
at the grading in all of these aspects as a means of making the required findings.
Commissioner James explained that the problem he has is that Staff is taking the Code
section and saying one can't do this unless you think it's reasonable. However, that is not
what the Code section says, as it says reasonable and necessary. He questioned what
that means.
Director Mihranian stated that the question Commissioners need to ask themselves is if
they see the grading that is being requested as reasonable and necessary to
accommodate the proposed development including the manipulation of the grades. He
explained that Staff believes the grading is necessary because it notches the structure
into the slope and reduces its visual appearance.
Commissioner James noted that the Code allows for one upslope retaining wall of a
certain height and one downslope retaining wall of a certain height. He stated that Staff
slides by that requirement with seven or eight walls that don't meet these requirements
so the Commission has to make the tenth finding. He stated he was a bit troubled to
allow seven or eight walls that are much taller than what the Code allows.
Director Mihranian stated there are several retaining walls, which directly relates to the
height of those walls. The overall height of the walls was controlled by designing more
Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 2016
Page 8
F-7
walls at a lower height. He stated that it is not uncommon for sloping lots to have more
than one retaining wall. He did not think the same standard that is applied to a pad lot
should be applied to a sloping lot. He noted this finding does not break it down to that
level of scrutiny, which is something the Commission has to look at.
Commissioner James explained his objection is not to what is being proposed, as he felt
what is proposed is reasonable, but rather how the Code is written. He stated the job of
the Commission is to apply the law, which in this case is the Code, and when projects
start to move away from what is allowed in the Code he begins to be troubled.
Director Mihranian pointed out that that tenth finding allows the Commission to deviate
from the basic grading design standards that apply Citywide.
Commissioner Emenhiser moved to adopt Staff's recommendation with the
revision to add terra cotta as the color of the roof, seconded by Commissioner
Nelson.
Director Mihranian proposed the following language for Condition No. 28: He proposed
striking out "earth tone" and what would read would be, and shall consist of a terra cotta
color with finishes and materials deemed acceptable by the Community Development
Director.
Commissioner Emenhiser accepted this language, seconded by Commissioner
Nelson.
Commissioner Nelson felt this project makes sense and was in support of the project.
Commissioner Leon stated he was also in favor of the project. He asked that the
acceptable materials on the roof include some texture and not be just a gravel roof.
Commissioner James noted that everyone who spoke against the project live on the street
above it and look down on the property, and everyone who spoke in favor of the project
live on the same street. He stated that there are development rules in the City, and while
this project may push the envelope on some of those rules, he did not think it violated any
of the rules. He felt that in the spirit of what is trying to be accomplished this home is
probably as acceptable as many on the street.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted the roof seemed to be the focal point of conversation,
and felt many of the issues were resolved with requiring the terra cotta color and the
articulation on the roof. He stated that he was in support of the motion.
Chairman Tomblin stated he was able to make the necessary findings and would be in
favor of the proposed project.
The motion to conditionally approve the project with the amended language to
Condition No. 28, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2017-12 was approved, (6-0).
Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 2016
Page 9
•2