CC SR 20170815 03 - Public Hearing Modify on Appeal 31717 Rue LangloisRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/15/2017
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to modify on appeal the Planning Commission's
approval of a Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review to allow the
demolition of an existing single family residence to accommodate the construction of a
new, two-story residence with 376 cubic yards of associated grading at 30717 Rue
Langlois (Case No. ZON2016-00162).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2017-_; modifying the Planning Commission's approval of a
Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review to allow the demolition of
an existing single family residence to accommodate the construction of a new
5,317 square foot, two-story residence (garage included) with 376 cubic yards of
associated grading at 30717 Rue Langlois.
FISCAL IMPACT: Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.80.120, if the City Council modifies
the conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, the appellant would be
entitled to a refund of half of the $2,275.00 appeal fee ($1,137.50).
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Jason Caraveo, Assistant Planner f
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, Alcp, Director of Community Development 71,;
APPROVED BY: Doug Wilmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 2017- (page A-1)
B. Appeal Letter (page B-1)
C. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-16 (page C-1)
D. P.C. Minutes of June 13, 2017 (page D-1)
E. Letter from Mr. Ogundipe (page E-1)
F. Email from Mrs. Wong (page F-1)
G. Applicants' Proposed Plans - To View Plans, Please Visit City Hall
All previous Staff Reports, Meeting Minutes, and public comments on this topic can be
found on the City's website via the March 28, 2017, May 9, 2017, and June 13, 2017
Planning Commission Agenda at http://www.rpvca.gov/772/City-Meeting-Video-and-
Agendas.
01203.0005/398274.1
1
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On March 28, 2017, the Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a public
hearing on the proposed project. In response to the neighbors' concerns regarding the
height, bulk and mass, square footage, neighborhood compatibility, and privacy
impacts, the Commission directed the Applicant (Mr. Ogundipe) to make specific
project modifications and continued the public hearing.
On May 9, 2017, after considering public testimony including a description of the
project revisions by the Applicant, the Commission approved the revised plans as
presented, on a vote of 3-1 with Commissioner Bradley dissenting, and directed Staff to
bring a Resolution conditionally approving the project for adoption at the June 13,
2017, meeting.
On June 13, 2017, the Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017-16 (Attachment
C), conditionally approving a Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review to
allow the existing single-family residence to be demolished to accommodate the
construction of a new 4,507 square -foot, two-story residence with 106 cubic yards of
associated grading. The meeting minutes (Attachment D) are attached which
memorialize the concerns raised by neighbors and the Commission's deliberation.
On June 27, 2017, a timely appeal of the Commission's approval was filed by the
Appellant (Mrs. Wong) who resides at 30715 Rue Valois, which is located upslope from
the subject property at an elevation that is approximately 50' higher than the subject
property. The appeal letter (Attachment B) expressed concerns with neighborhood
compatibility, view impairment, and privacy, light, and air impacts. On July 7, 2017,
Staff met with the Appellant, and the bases of the appeal were narrowed to the following
three concerns: 1) height, 2) structure size, and 3) the Commission's approval to allow a
three -car garage.
In response to the appeal, the Applicant has worked closely with Staff and the Appellant
to identify design solutions that address the three concerns expressed by the Appellant.
The Applicant proposes, and the Appellant accepts, the following design modifications
to the Commission -approved project for the City Council's consideration:
1) Building Height
Due to the project's visibility from the Appellant's residence, the Appellant requested
that the structure's ridgeline be reduced by V to 2'. In response, the Applicant has
reduced the structure's ridgeline by 1'. This change reduces the overall height from the
Commission -approved height of 23'-8" to 22'-8". The Commission found no significant
view impairment at 23'-8" in height, so the Commission's findings related to building
height can still be made for the revised project at 22'-8" in height. It should be noted
that the structure's height was originally proposed to the Commission at 26'.
01203.0005/398274.1
2
2) Structure Size
The Commission -approved residence was reduced in structure size by 1,535 square
feet from the original, proposed structure size (6,042 sq. ft.) by removing the basement
and removing square footage from both the upper and lower floors. The Commission
found that the revised residence was compatible with the immediate neighborhood in
terms of structure size because it was in line with the size of the homes within the
immediate neighborhood (20 closest homes), which range between 2,030 sq. ft. and
5,465 sq. ft. The Commission also felt that proposed setbacks and lot coverage were
consistent with the immediate neighborhood, and that the proposed design included
articulation in the fagade and the use of materials that minimized the apparent
bulk/mass.
The appeal expresses a concern that the Commission -approved residence at 4,507
square feet is still out of scale and bulky/massive when compared to the majority of the
residences within the immediate neighborhood. However, after further discussion, the
Applicant and the Appellant have agreed to the proposed structure size at 4,507 square
feet because of the extensive articulation between the upper and lower floors.
Additionally, the Applicant has reintroduced a basement at 810 square feet because the
Appellant indicated she is not concerned with additional square footage below grade
since it is not visible from neighboring properties or the public right-of-way. To
accommodate the basement, the applicant is requesting to increase the Commission -
approved grading to 376 cubic yards of earth movement (cut). Staff believes the
required Grading Permit findings supporting the additional grading to accommodate the
basement can be made, as discussed in the attached draft resolution (Attachment A). It
should also be noted that the Commission found the basement to be an acceptable
component of the project, especially because the added square footage would not be
visible. With the 810 -square -foot basement addition, the overall structure size increases
to 5,317 square feet. Staff believes that the new structure size continues to be
compatible with the neighborhood as there is no change to the visible square footage of
4,507 square feet and that there is no change to the apparent bulk/mass.
3) Three -Car Garage
The Appellant believes that the Commission -approved third car parking space adds to
the overall bulk/mass and creates a precedent for 3 -car garages in the neighborhood
when most of the residences have a two car garage. As proposed, the garage appears
like a typical 2 -car garage from the street as the third parking space is tandem and not
visible. Three car garages are not uncommon in the City and there is already a
residence with a 3 -car garage at the end of the cul-de-sac at 31035 Rue Langlois.
However, unlike the proposed project, the 3 -car garage at 31035 Rue Langlois is not
tandem and therefore, visible and accessible from the street. Staff believes that the third
garage space benefits the neighborhood by potentially removing a parked car from the
public street. Furthermore, the Appellant has indicated that she is no longer concerned
with the 3 -car garage.
01203.0005/398274.1
3
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.
Public Notice
On July 13, 2017, a public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius
of the subject site and published in the Peninsula News.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the discussion above, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt
Resolution No. 2017-_, thereby modifying the Commission -approved project by
reducing the overall height of the structure to 22'-8"; increasing the allowable total
square footage to 5,317 square feet to accommodate the addition of the 810 -square
foot -basement; and to allow 376 cubic yards of associated grading.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council's consideration:
1. Uphold the appeal, thereby overturning the Planning Commission's
approval of Planning Case No. ZON2016-00162 (Height Variation,
Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review) and direct Staff to return to the City
Council with a revised Resolution for adoption at the September 5, 2017,
City Council meeting.
2. Further modify the project on appeal and direct Staff to return to the City
Council with a revised Resolution for adoption at the September 5, 2017,
City Council meeting.
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.
01203.0005/398274.1
4
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES MODIFYING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A HEIGHT VARIATION,
GRADING PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW
THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW 5,317 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY
RESIDENCE (GARAGE INCLUDED) WITH 376 CUBIC
YARDS OF ASSOCIATED GRADING AT 30717 RUE
LANGLOIS (CASE NO ZON2016-00162).
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2016, the applicant submitted Height Variation, Grading
Permit, and Site Plan Review applications requesting approval to demolish an existing
single family residence to accommodate the construction of a new 6,042 square foot, two-
story, residence with a basement and associated grading; and,
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2016, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at
which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted additional information on August 18, 2016,
September 19, 2016, October 3, 2016, November 17, 2016, December 13, 2016, January
17, 2017, and February 8, 2017 for review; and,
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2017, the application was deemed complete by Staff;
and,
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed
public hearing, considered public testimony and based on concerns related to
neighborhood compatibility, scale, bulk and mass, structure height and privacy impacts, the
Planning Commission directed the Applicant to revise the project plans and continued the
public hearing to its May 9th meeting; and,
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2017, the Planning Commission, after considering public
testimony, approved a revised project on a vote of 3-1 with Commissioner Bradley
dissenting and directed Staff to bring a Resolution reflecting the decision for adoption at
the June 13, 2017, meeting; and,
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution
No. 2017-16, approving Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review to allow
the demolition of an existing single family residence to accommodate the construction of a
new 4,507 square foot, two-story residence (garage included), 424 square feet of
balconies, and 106 cubic yards of grading; and,
01203.0005/398276.1
A-1
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, a timely appeal was filed by YanTien Wong
(Appellant), the property owner of 30715 Rue Valois, raising concerns with neighborhood
compatibility, view impairment, and privacy, light, and air impacts; and,
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2017, Staff met with the Appellant, who narrowed the scope
of the appeal to 1) Building Height, 2) Structure Size, and 3) the Three -Car Garage; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to the following design modifications to the
project previously approved by the Planning Commission:
1. Building Height: The Planning Commission approved a total height of 23'-8".
Applicant has agreed to reduce the total height by one foot to 22'-8".
2. Structure Size: The Planning Commission approved a total structure size of
4,507 square feet, and approved a structure plan that did not include a
basement. Applicant now wishes to add an 810 square foot basement,
which will increase the overall structure size to 5,317 square feet. The
basement will not be visible from neighboring properties or the public right-of-
way.
3. Grading: The Planning Commission approved total grading of 106 cubic
yards. To accommodate the addition of a basement, applicant is now
requesting total grading of 376 cubic yards (cut).
4. Three -Car Garage: The Appellant has withdrawn her objection to the 3 -car
garage.
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2017, a public notice was mailed to property owners within
a 500 -foot radius of the subject property and published in the Peninsula News, pursuant to
the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code; 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 CEQA. Specifically, the
project includes the demolition of an existing single family residence to construct a new
single family residence on a residentially zoned lot; and,
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the merits of the appeal, 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:
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 2 of 12
A-2
Section 1: The application for a Height Variation allowing for a total height of 22'-
8" is granted on the basis of the following findings, which are in accordance with Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e):
A. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process
established by the City. More specifically, the applicant obtained 19 signatures out
of the 60 property owners within 500 feet of the property (31.6%) and 7 signatures
out of the 9 property owners within 100 feet of the property (77.7%), thus fulfilling
the requirement of obtaining the signatures of at least 70% of the landowners within
100 feet and 25% of the total number of landowners within 500 feet of the project
site.
B. The proposed addition that is above 16 feet does not significantly impair a view from
public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian
trails) which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan
as a City -designated viewing area. Additionally, the subject property is not located
within the City's Coastal Specific Plan. As such, the proposed structure will not
significantly impair a view which has been defined in the City's General Plan,
Coastal Specific Plan, or a public trail.
C. The proposed structure is on a site that is not located on a ridge or prominent mass
of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on two sides.
D. The area of the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height, as
defined in Section 17.02.040(B) of the Municipal Code, when considered exclusive
of existing foliage, would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of
another parcel. More specifically, the views of Catalina Island and the Pacific
Ocean are in the westerly direction. The residences located to the east on Rue
Valois are located approximately 50' higher in elevation, the properties to the north
and south are at similar elevations as the subject property, and the properties to the
west are across the street (Palos Verdes Drive West) and are approximately 50'
lower in elevation. Due to the topography, lot configuration and orientation of the
second -story addition, no portion of the proposed residence over sixteen feet will
affect views from the viewing area of neighboring properties.
E. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application. Cumulative view impairment is determined by: (a) considering the
amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structure
that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen
feet in height; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be
caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions
that exceed sixteen feet in height. As discussed in Section D above, the proposed
new structure would not cause significant view impairment. The construction of
similar new structures on other parcels adjacent to the subject property — namely,
01203.0005/398276.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 3 of 12
A-3
30703, 30709, 30723, and 30729 Rue Langlois — would not cause significant view
impairment because the residences located to the east on Rue Valois are located
approximately 50' higher in elevation, the properties to the north and south are at
similar elevations as the subject property, and the properties to the west are across
the street (Palos Verdes Drive West) and are approximately 50' lower in elevation.
F. The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements, including the
development standards and guidelines of the RS -4 zoning district, including but not
limited to, lot coverage and setbacks.
G. The proposed addition is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in
terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style, and bulk and mass.
The homes in the immediate neighborhood range in size from 2,030 square feet to
5,465 square feet. The resulting structure size for the proposed project, at 5,317
square feet total (garage and basement included), will be within the range of the
homes in the immediate neighborhood. This is because only 4,507 square feet of
the structure is above grade while the 810 -square -foot of basement will be below
grade and not visible. Additionally, the proposed lot coverage and setbacks are
consistent with those of the surrounding properties. The proposed project includes
multiple breaks and articulation in the facade with the use of a mansard roof, a
porch, and the materials to minimize possible bulk and mass impacts as seen from
all vantage points. The architectural style of the proposed residence would maintain
the architectural style found in the immediate neighborhood by utilizing stucco siding
and tile roof materials, similar to the materials found in the immediate neighborhood.
In terms of height, the proposed structure has been lowered to 22'-8", which is in
line with the scale and height of other two-story structures within the immediate
neighborhood. The proposed three -car garage appears like a typical 2 -car garage
from the street as the third parking space is tandem and not visible. Furthermore, 3 -
car garages are not uncommon in the City and there is already a residence with a 3 -
car garage at the end of the cul-de-sac at 31035 Rue Langlois.
H. The proposed new structure that is above 16 feet in height does not result in an
unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences.
The proposed second story structure includes a second -story balcony along the rear
facade of the residence that will allow a view of the rear yard areas of the abutting
properties located at 30723 Rue Langlois and 30709 Rue Langlois. However, to
mitigate any potential privacy impacts, the proposed balcony areas are set back
from the rear fapade of the residence and the sitting area of the balcony is placed in
between the main structure of the second story, allowing minimal visibility onto the
neighbors' properties to the north and south.
Section 2: The application for a Grading Permit allowing for a 376 cubic yards of
grading to accommodate the proposed residence is granted on the basis of the following
01203.0005/398276.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 4 of 12
MA
findings, which are in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section
17.76.040(E):
A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use
of the lot. The proposed project is in a RS -4 Zoning District, in which the primary
use of the lot is residential. The proposed 376 cubic yards of grading and
associated retaining walls to accommodate the basement do not exceed that which
is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The grading primarily occurs
underneath the proposed structure to accommodate the construction of the
basement. The proposed grading would allow the applicant to reasonably help
mitigate the impact of bulk and mass of the proposed structure by constructing a
basement below grade reducing its visible appearance from the public right-of-way
and surrounding properties.
B. The proposed grading and/ or related construction does not significantly adversely
affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing area of
neighboring properties. The views of the Catalina Island and the Pacific Ocean are
observed over the roof of the proposed residence in the westerly direction. The
properties to the east of the subject property are elevated approximately 50'-0".
Given the elevation difference, the views from the viewing areas of the westerly
neighbors will not be impacted by the proposed project.
C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural. The proposed grading maintains a
majority of the natural contours on the subject property. As most of the grading will
be conducted underneath the residence, the visible finished contours surrounding
the proposed residence will not be affected and will maintain the natural
appearances of the land by means of minimal land sculpturing so as to blend any
man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography.
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and
appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or
manufactured slope into the natural topography. Most of the proposed grading will
be conducted underneath the residence, the visible finished contours surrounding
the proposed residence will not be affected and will maintain the natural
appearances of the land by means of minimal land sculpturing so as to blend any
man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography.
E. The grading and related construction is compatible with the immediate
neighborhood character as discussed in Section 1 G.
F. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation as the proposed grading
is not for a new residential tract.
01203.0005/398276.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 5 of 12
A-5
G. The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, maximum
finished slopes, maximum depth of cut and fill, and retaining wall heights. In
addition, the grading conforms to the retaining wall standards that allow for retaining
walls which are an integral part of a structure to exceed eight feet within the building
footprint. As such the four proposed retaining walls within and below the building
footprint are an integral part of the proposed basement.
Section 3: The Site Plan Review is approved for the proposed residence and
accessory structures because they would comply with the required residential setback
standards and lot coverage in the Municipal Code.
Section 4: The Appellant submitted a letter on June 27, 2017, appealing the
approval of the proposed Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review for the
following reasons: 1) Building Height, 2) Structure Size, and 3) Three -Car Garage. The
City Council finds that the Appellant's grounds for appeal are not warranted for the
following reasons:
A. The Applicant has reduced the structure's ridgeline by 1 foot, thereby reducing the
overall height of the structure to 22'-8" to be in line with other two-story structures
within the immediate neighborhood and to reduce the visibility of the structure from
the Appellant's residence.
B. The appeal expresses a concern that the Commission -approved residence at 4,507
square feet is out of scale and bulky/massive when compared to the majority of the
residences within the immediate neighborhood. However, after further discussion,
the Applicant and the Appellant have agreed to the proposed structure size, visible
above ground, at 4,507 square feet because of the extensive articulation between
the upper and lower floors. Additionally, the Applicant has reintroduced a basement
at 810 square foot because the Appellant indicated she is not concerned with
additional square footage below grade as it is not visible from neighboring
properties or the public right-of-way. With the 810 square foot basement addition,
the overall structure size increased to 5,317 square feet. Thus, the new structure
size is compatible with the neighborhood as there is no change to the visible square
footage of 4,507 square feet and that there is no change to the apparent bulk/mass.
C. The Appellant claims that the Commission -approved 3 -car garage adds to the
overall bulk/mass and creates a precedent for 3 -car garages in the neighborhood
when most of the residences have 2 -car garage. As proposed, the garage appears
like a typical 2 -car garage from the street as the third parking space is tandem and
not visible. Three -car garages are not uncommon in the City and there is already a
residence with a 3 -car garage at the end of the cul-de-sac at 31035 Rue Langlois.
However, unlike the proposed project, the 3 -car garage at 31035 Rue Langlois is
not tandem and therefore, visible and accessible from the street. Moreover, the
Appellant has indicated that she is no longer concerned about the 3 -car garage.
01203.0005/398276.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 6 of 12
M
Section 5: 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 modifies the Planning Commission's approval of
a Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan, as stated herein, to allow for the
demolition of an existing single family residence to accommodate the construction of a new
5,317 square foot, two-story residence (garage included) with 376 cubic yards of
associated grading at 30717 Rue Langlois, subject to the Conditions of Approval in the
attached Exhibit "A".
Section 6: 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 7: 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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August 2017.
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 August 15, 2017.
01203.0005/398276.1
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 7 of 12
A-7
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00162
(HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW)
30717 RUE LANGLOIS
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 the 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, the Director of Community Development 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.
Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require
01203.0005/398276.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 8 of 12
approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new
and separate environmental review and public notification.
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 or 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
01203.0005/398276.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 9 of 12
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, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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 Municipal 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 7:00 AM Monday through Friday and before
9:00 AM 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.
15. A minimum 2 -car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space
being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of
9' in width and 20' in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance.
16. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section
17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. No outdoor lighting is
permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of
a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is
physically located.
17. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
18. 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.
19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the
project's compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445
and the City Municipal Code requirements regarding wood -burning devices.
20. 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.
21. If 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, the applicant shall provide temporary construction fencing, as
01203.0005/398276.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 10 of 12
A-10
defined in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Municipal Code. Unless required to protect
against a safety hazard, temporary construction fencing shall not be erected sooner
than 15 days prior to commencement of construction.
Prosect Specific Conditions:
22. This approval is for the following:
A. Demolish an existing single-family residence.
B. Construct a 5,317 square -foot, 2 -story single-family residence, including a
711 -square -foot 3 -car garage and an 810 -square -foot basement.
C. Construct 424 square feet of balconies.
D. Construct 594 square feet of first -floor covered patio area along the front and
rear fagades.
E. Install a skylight on the west side of the highest roof ridge line.
F. Change the current driveway configuration to a new direct access garage.
G. Conduct 376 cubic yards of grading (cut), to accommodate the proposed
improvements.
BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection.
23. The height of the approved residence shall be as depicted on the stamped
APPROVED plans and in no case shall the maximum height extend above a height
of 22'-8" as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev.
296.25') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 318.93'); and a height of 21'-
3", as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the
structure (elev. 297.70') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 318.93').
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.
24. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
project shall maintain a maximum of 42.3% lot coverage.
25. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 21'-0" front, 65'-8" rear, 6'-8"
north side and 6'-6" south side. BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to
foundation forms inspection.
26. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not
exceed 50%.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 11 of 12
A-11
27. The proposed chimney may project a maximum of 2' into any required setback, and
shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform
Building Code.
28. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the applicant shall submit
complete Landscape Plans to the Planning Division for review and approval by the
Community Development Director. 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. Newly planted trees shall not exceed 16' in height, or the highest roof
ridgeline, whichever is lower.
29. The following minimum driveway widths and turning radii shall be provided for all
driveways leading from the street of access to a garage or other parking area on a
residential parcel:
A. The driveway shall be a minimum width of ten feet.
B. The driveway shall take into account the driveway standards required by the
Department of Public Works for driveway entrances located in the public
right-of-way.
C. Portions of the driveway that is located adjacent to the side property line
shall provide a minimum eighteen -inch -wide landscaped area between the
side property line and the adjacent driveway, unless such buffer would
reduce the minimum width of the driveway to less than ten feet, in which
case the width of the landscape buffer may be narrowed or eliminated at the
discretion of the Director.
D. All driveways shall be built and maintained in accordance with the
specifications of the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
30. The proposed A/C unit shall comply with the required side and/or rear setbacks.
31. The proposed A/C unit shall be screened from view from adjacent public right-of-
way with foliage or other appropriate screening.
01203.0005/398276.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 12 of 12
A-12
June 25, 2017
To: The City Council
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
From: YanTien Wong
30715 Rue Valois
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
RECEIVED
JUN 2 7 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Re: Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-00162) at 30717 Rue
Langlois
To the City Council:
It is my contention that the project that has been approved at 30717 Rue Langlois with 4,507 sf of
above -grade footage (including the garage), is out of scale with the neighborhood and should be
appealed. It was incumbent upon the Planning Commission to determine that this project is
neighborhood -compatible with respect to bulk and mass in order to approve the height variance. After
this last hearing (June 13t') at the Planning Commission, I feel that I have no other choice but to appeal
this project, as it has become clearer and clearer to me, and I think even to some Commissioners, that
an injustice has been done. I am looking to the Council to review this ruling to ensure that it is in fact a
"real ruling" and not "just a mistake".
When you have two Commissioners (Tomblin and Leon who were absent from the hearing before)
choosing to recuse themselves even though they did review the minutes of the decision made on May
9th, and two others supporting a motion to waive my fees for this appeal (Emenhiser and Bradley),
there is some indication that something has gone awry. Despite the fact that the resolution to approved
the project surfaced through a series of hearings that were procedurally correct, the decision seems
bankrupt of core values. One June 1311, when asked about "neighborhood scale" the Commission
refused to own up to their own "subjectivity". Instead of committing that in their opinion, a house that
has 4500 sf of above -grade mass is in fact neighborhood compatible, they chose instead to state that
"we have no standards." This begs the question — so what does the city stand for? We do after all have
a code in place that describes a 16 foot height limit that can only be broken if applications are
compatible in visual scale. Why not uphold that? (Per the Municiple Code: Scale" means the total
square footage and lot coverage of a residence and all ancillary structures")
It is shameful that the Applicant came before the City with such an outrageous proposal at the March
281h hearing. (The applicant proposed a 6042 sf home on a street where homes are between 1662 sf and
2780 sf / where the average home is more like 2000 sf and predominantly SINGLE STORY. They presented
a project with 4,936 sf above -grade, inclusive of the garage.) The Planning Commission said as much,
commenting that the applicant's use of 30831 Rue Langlois as a precedent was a mistake on the
architect's part — as this house is an outlier, on a corner lot, with scale so grotesque that they would
never have approved this project had it come before them. Staff had already tried and failed to reign
the applicant in prior to their presentation at the hearing.
M
It is shameful that the Applicant ignored the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation for a
much larger basement to reduce the above —grade presence. In fact they more than ignored the
recommendation — they snubbed their noses at it by eliminating the basement. Is that not complete
arrogance? Instead of being insulted by that response, the Planning Commission rewarded them with
an approval. Did the Commission not realize that the project had gone on only on a slight diet (4936 sf
vs. 4507 sf of above -grade footage inclusive of garage)?
To add insult to injury, the Planning Commission approved a third covered parking space adding bulk
and mass that doesn't even need to be there by code. Again, why not enforce the codes that we have —
neighborhood compatibility, rather than introduce new requirements that add to bulk and mass? There
is no precedent for 3 -car garages in our neighborhood, even among the larger outliers. Please do not
set one. (As stated at the first hearing, a 3 -car garage is required at 5000 sf of habitable footage —three
Commissioners recommended that this Applicant, although they are not quite at 5000 sf of habitable
space, that they should add a third covered space given how much footage they wanted. What started
as a critique of the scale of the application by Commissioner Bradley, became a recommendation
predicated upon the assumption that a basement would be the means by which the applicant would
achieve the desired footage (see Commissioner Tomblin's remarks at first hearing). The Applicant DID
NOT implement the basement BUT DID add a 31 covered parking space. it is my belief that the
Commission inadvertently made recommendations that ADDED to bulk and mass. Again, this is bulk and
mass not even required by code!!)
What is most shameful is that the Planning Commission has granted an approval to this Applicant,
negatively impacting the rest of us (our light, our air, our privacy, our views), and without offering the
opinion that we as neighbors have every right to do the same. That is hypocrisy. After all it was this
Planning Commission that warned of the "Cumulative View Impact" (James, Bradley, Nelson, Leon,
Tomblin) at the first hearing. Can they not acknowledge that they themselves are contributing to this
momentum?
The City's responsibility is to keep these applicants in check and instead you have Commissioners who
are overly sympathetic to applicants who so blatantly ignore Staff and Commission recommendations.
Just because the Planning Commission hammered the Applicant with scathing critique in the first round
does not mean the job is done. Your responsibility is to do more than just chastise, your job is to
enforce. In my opinion, the Commission failed to uphold any standard. I truly believe that this process
has failed me and my neighbors and at this point I have absolutely no faith that I will be treated fairly in
the future. To grant one party 4500 sf above grade and not to grant another the same, with the
disclaimer that we are subject the whims of the Planning Commission at any given point in time opens
the City to future litigation.
With regard to the Appeal Fee: I think it is fair to say the Planning Commission's feedback was
inconsistent across the two hearings. For one to suggest that I should take comfort in the fact that the
appeal process already has built into it a mechanism for full or partial refund that assures fairness is
ludicrous. What faith would anyone have in a fair process after experiencing what I just experienced?
To Commissioner Bradley — my special thanks for towing the line and reminding the Commission of their
strongly voiced opinions with regard to "scale" at the first hearing.
To Commissioners Emenhiser and Bradley - my special thanks for supporting a motion to waive appeal
fees, and to Commissioner James as well for re -opening the public hearing. I recognize that despite the
outcome of these hearings, that the Planning Commission has every intent to serve the public and allow
every opportunity for fairness and transparency. Thank you for "the motion on the motion" and for
tripping over procedure to allow me to make my case.
Thank you for your consideration,
P.S. Please also see attached, prior letters written to the city.
M
6/16/2017
Gmail - Re: 30717 Rue Langlois Staff Report
MGmail YanTien Wong <yani.wong.2015@gmail.com>
Re: 30717 Rue Langlois Staff Report
1 message
YanTien Wong <yani.wong.2015@gmail.com> Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:53 AM
To: Jason Caraveo <JasonC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <aram@rpvca.gov>, Ryan Tanaka <ryantanaka@yahoo.com>
Jason,
also want to state that a $2,275 appeal fee does not seem in the public interest. My husband and I would appeal the
project if not for the $2,275 fee. Our feeling is that the fee works to absolve the Planning Commission of
responsibility as the City knows that people generally don't have funds on hand to undergo a legal battle. We are
considering consultation with an attorney on this matter - as you can tell - we are frustrated by the whole scenario.
Respectfully,
YanTien Wong
B-4
hftps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5849884327&view=pt&q=in%3Asent%20JasonC%40rpvca.gov&qs=true&search=query&th=15c984a 116aOa... 1/1
6/16/2017, Gmail - Re: 30717 Rue Langlois Staff Report
MGmail YanTien Wong <yani.wong.2015@gmaII.com>
Re: 30717 Rue Langlois Staff Report
1 message
YanTien Wong <yani.wong.2015@gmail.com>
To: Jason Caraveo <JasonC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <aram@rpvca.gov>, Ryan Tanaka <ryantanaka@yahoo.com>
Hello Jason,
Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:15 AM
Thanks for letting me know about the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. My husband and I do not plan to appeal
the project, but we would like to ask the Planning Commission to state in no uncertain terms, what their understanding of
"compatible and visual scale" is for our neighborhood as my interpretation and the Planning Commission's is wildly
different. As stated before, in letters, and at the hearing, most homes in our neighborhood range from 1,662 to 2,780 sf,
while this project was approved for 4,507 feet — so large that it requires a 3 -car garage (as requested by Planning
Commission) and a height variance. To many people, this would suggest that the house is out of scale. It may very well
be that the Planning Commission is looking at a much larger universe of homes, outside of the area that we consider to
be "our neighborhood". If that is the case, I would like this noted for the record.
This is by no means an attack on the Planning Commission, but really a plea to the Commission to state more concretely
— that is, in terms of number of stories above grade, and in terms of above -grade footages (no one wants a basement —
they're dark and expensive), what is "neighborhood compatible scale" for the length of Rue Langlois directly in front of
Rue Valois, and similarly, what is "neighborhood compatible scale" for the length of Rue Valois directly in front of Via
Rivera. Home owners on Via Rivera, directly above Rue Valois, will have very similar concerns when homes on Rue
Valois further develop. The topographical relationship between Valois and Rivera is almost identical to the topographical
relationship between Langlois and Valois. In the foreseeable future, we hope to remodel our home and would like to
know what we are entitled to build.
We would very much like to trust in the system, trust the code, and trust that they will interpreted fairly and consistently
over time, but given the discrepancy between the interpretation of many neighbors including myself, and that of the
Planning Commission, I feel that this question needs to be addressed, and addressed on record.
I would like to further note, that the reduction in height from 26 feet to 24 feet, although nominally slight, did significantly
minimize view impact and the bulk of "the foreign object". I feel that it is extremely important going forward that the
Planning Commission be vigilant with respect to height — every increment makes a huge difference from the perspective
of Rue Valois.
Thank you for your time,
YanTien Wong
Owner at 30715 Rue Valois
B-5
https://mail.google.com/maiUu/0/?ui=2&ik=5849884327&view=pt&q=in%3Asent%20JasonC%40rpvca.gov&qs=true&search=query&th=l 5c98272d83a... 1/2
6/16/2017
Gmail - Re: 30717 Rue Langlois Staff Report
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jason Caraveo <JasonC@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello,
Below is the link to the agenda for next week's June 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting that includes the project
located at 30717 Rue Langlois that you have expressed interest in. Please review the report and if you are able to
attend the meeting next Tuesday please do so. If you are unable to make the meeting you can still express any
additional concerns by sending me an email of your letter or coming into the office and submitting a hard copy of your
letter before the meeting.
June 13, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item Number 2
Thank you,
Jason Caraveo
Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Tafos Verdes
Planning Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
Phone: (310) 544-5232 — Fax: (310) 544-5293
iasonc .rpvca.gov
B-6
https:Hmail.goog le. com/ma iVu/0/?u i=2&ik=5849884327&view=pt&q=in%3Asent%20JasonC%40rpvca.gov&qs=true&search=query&th=15c98272d83a... 2/2
6/16/2017 Gmail - Case No. ZON2016-00162 (project proposed at 30717 Rue Valois)
M Gmail
YanTien Wong <yani.wong.2015@gmail.com>
Case No. ZON2016-00162 (project proposed at 30717 Rue Valois)
1 message
YanTien Wong <yani.wong.2015@gmail.com> Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:31 PM
To: jasonc@rpv.com
Cc: Ryan Tanaka <ryantanaka@yahoo.com>
Bcc: Sherry N <sherryparker10@hotmail.com>, cpeterson@cpetersonlaw.com
Jason,
Would you please pass on these additional comments (supplement to my letter) to the Planning Commission members. I
was able to take a couple more photos that demonstrate our concerns about the 2nd story proposed at 30717 Rue Valois.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PHOTOS:
PHOTO 1 - taken from dining room of 30715 Rue Valois.
Note how this upper story is so prominent from our perspective - thus marring our quality of view - it sticks up like a sore
thumb.
Note how this upper story looks onto our property. We are concerned about our privacy.
Note that at night, this upper story will pour light onto our property.
PHOTO 2 - taken from the same location as PHOTO 1 (from the dining room of 30715 Rue Valois).
You can just make out the stakes in this photo. Right now, we see only the lights of houses in the distance.
The proposed upper story will be a lit light a lantern - this is such an invasion of privacy - to have lit box in such close
proximity to us.
See previous PHOTO 1 as a reference for location of stakes.
If you would kindly confirm that you received this email and its attachment.
Thank you,
YanTien Wong & Ryan Tanaka
Owners at 30715 Rue Valois
Supplemental_photos_30715_Rue_Valois.pdf
1031 K
B-7
hitps: /Im a i l.g oog le. com/maiVu/0/?u i=2&i k=5849884327&view=pt&as_sizeoperator—s_sl&as—sizeu nit=s_smb&as_subset=sent&as_date=2017%2 F03%... 1 !1
0
PHOTO 1 - taken from dining room of 30715 Rue Valois.
!Vote how this upper story is so prominent from our perspective - thus marring our quality of view - it sticks up like a sore thumb.
Note how this upper story looks onto our property. We are concerned about our privacy.
Note that at night, this upper story will pour light onto our properly.
March 12, 2017
The Planning Commission
c/o Jason Caraveo
Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
YanTien Wong & Ryan Tanaka
30715 Rue Valois
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-00162) at 30717 Rue
Langlois
We are YanTien Wong and Ryan Tanaka, owners of 30715 Rue Valois, the property directly above
30717 Rue Langlois. I have a Master's Degree in Architecture from the University of California at
Berkeley and have been working in the architectural field for 18 years. My husband and I are
deeply concerned about the proposed development at 30717 Rue Langlois. The proposed 2 -story
residence will greatly impact our view of the ocean, our view of the cliff -side nature path along the
water, and our view of the Palos Verdes Drive Esplanade.
Municipal Code Development Standards (17.22.050) states that buildings above 16 feet in height
may be permitted by the planning commission pursuant to a conditional use permit provided that 1)
the proposed height is compatible and in visual scale with the overall development concept for
the property; and 2) the structure, at the proposed height, does not significantly impair a public or
private view as defined in Section 17.02.040, and is designed in a manner that minimizes view
impairment.
View Impairment:
We argue that the proposed development (and the subsequent 2nd story development that it would
encourage along the Rue Langlois) would impair both our "near" and "far" views. Our near view is
of 1) the cliff -side nature path along the water (cliff -side dirt pathway in the photos and 2) the
Esplanade along Palos Verdes Drive West. Our "far" view is our 180 -degree view of the ocean,
Catalina and Malibu and has a particular "nature" to be protected.
Near View
Cliff -side Nature Path and Palos Verdes Drive Esplanade: Photo A - this photo was taken from
inside of our dining room. The stakes in relation to the telephone wires is clear, and it is easy to
imagine what the impact would be if 30717 Rue Langlois and those adjacent to it were to continue
to build upward: Our view of the Palos Verdes Drive West Esplanade and Cliff -side nature path
along the water would be largely impaired. Photo B shows the same loss of view of these
important features, just closer up. The photos were taken from our rear patio, where we relax and
dine regularly. We argue that although this photo is not taken from inside the house, that our view
from our rear patio in its entirety is as important as the view from the interior of our house.
Because of our tremendous view, the outdoor terrace is the jewel of our living space and a primary
living area — and why we bought this property.
Per Section 17.02.040 - View Preservation and Restoration - paragraph 15 of the municipal code,
"'Viewing Area' means that area off a structure or that area of a lot where the owner and city
determine the best and most important views exist."
Paragraph 5 similarly states that "the determination of viewing area shall be made by balancing the
nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from
where the view is taken"
Far View / Nature of View
The municipal code discusses that "nature of view" is an important factor to consider. The nature
of our "far view" is a horizontally layered view — of greenery in the foreground as the first swath,
the cliff -side nature path near the water's edge as the second swath, and finally the ocean. The
proposed second story at 30717 Rue Langlois impairs our "far view" and detracts from the "nature
of our view". The stakes are literally "in our face" — a foreground obstruction (in very close
proximity to our property), vertically disrupting / completely marring the horizontal low-lying grain
of this serene landscape / ocean-scape.
Visual Scale & Neighborhood Compatibility
The Planning Commission must determine that this project is compatible in visual scale with the
overall concept for the property.
We argue that it is not compatible based on the predominant pattern of development in the
neighborhood, particularly on lots with the same topographical characteristics and the same
orientation towards the ocean. We are a series of streets running parallel to the ocean and
ascending the hillside in regular increments: Rue Langlois, Rue Valois (our street) and Via Rivera
above - with almost the same lot sizes and scale of homes, all enioving the same quality of view.
Homes are predominately single story homes with 8' plate heights, conforming to a 16 -foot height
limit. Predominantly — (that is with the exception of 1 home out of the 30 homes along the length
B-11
of Rue Langlois directly in front of Rue Valois) the square footage of homes range between 1,662 to
2,780 sf (see attached Exhibit showing these footages).
In contrast: the proposed structure is 4,999 sf total living space (6,042 sf if you include garage and
storage) with 11' plate heights at the lower level and 10'-1" plates heights at the upper level. The
roof is maxed out at the 26' building limit sought through the height variation / conditional use
permit. The second story steps back from the first story, but only by 5'-7" atone side yard, and
from 2'-6" to not at all at the other side yard. It is grossly out of scale and inconsiderate of the
properties above on Rue Valois and those adjacent at Rue Langlois. It makes no attempt to
minimize view impairment as a height variation would require. It makes no attempt to respect the
scale of the neighborhood as a height variation would require.
If construction at 30717 Rue Langlois proceeds as proposed, we will no longer enjoy the same
quality of view that is so uniformly enioyed by the vast majority of homes along our street (Rue
Valois) and by homes up on Via Rivera. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a
precedent for 2 -story development along Rue Langlois that will substantially disrupt our view of
significant features of the landscape, and will severely degrade our view.
Noise and Privacy
The plans also call for a second story patio over top of the garage that looks towards our home. We
do not like the idea of a patio that looks in our direction, compromising our privacy. We worry too
about noise coming from activity on this balcony.
We appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns.
Sincerely,
YanTien Wong & Ryan Tanaka
NOW
PHOTO A - View from inside the dining room of 30715 Rue Valois
B-13
Mme'
�, .. W-4.
sow—
Aa
dff
lie
AjW
IF
Jv
• •+ ' .k 1 r ' w. +. � � 1 k .� _ I 1 r� � F� � •y .� i1 •ar - .%� - - ,
A '� " .. fit` -r '�`,� .,� � .`k . �_ _ _ r ,-ti� ' - a _ •r _ �r�� .+ 5` �• �1 -� � .�••�� •aa� - e � � �• -sw • � ,�y r - - - _ / .
,u ` _ �. +r• •+ M • 'Y. -. Y. `.. •F t.. • / F , :� i _� b� Y- �C^ rj rj. ��}�y,
,rte _ � •
• 1
' 30715 Rue Valois
Y
Ae
r
.r r b s [
� 4
J r
1 - • S
O e _ O • O , •e ♦ '. ley. `
44
30717 Rue Langlois
(Applicant) • • ` r � ` '. sir'' � � .. � t .� � � ,� �..
Ste► !. - '� _ i M "_ 1 140, •
EXHIBIT - BUILDING FOOTAGES ALONG RUE LANGLOIS
There are 30 homes along the length of Rue Langlois directly in front of houses on Rue Valois.
The footages of these homes are listed in red.
With the exception of one home, footages range from 1,662 sf to 2,780 sf
B-15
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT,
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF
AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,507
SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (GARAGE
INCLUDED), 424 SQUARE FEET OF BALCONIES, AND 106
CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING AT 30717 RUE LANGLOIS
(CASE NO ZON2016-00162).
WHEREAS, On April 14, 2016, the applicant submitted Height Variation, Grading
Permit, and Site Plan Review applications requesting approval to demolish an existing
single family residence to accommodate the construction of a new 6,042 square foot, two-
story, residence with a basement and associated grading; and,
WHEREAS, On May 2, 2016, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at
which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted additional information on August 18, 2016,
September 19, 2016, October 3, 2016, November 17, 2016, December 13, 2016, January
17, 2017, and February 8, 2017 for review; and,
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2017, the application was deemed complete by Staff;
and,
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing, considered public testimony and based on concerns related to
neighborhood compatibility, scale, bulk and mass, structure height and privacy impacts, the
Planning Commission directed the Applicant to revise the project plans and continued the
public hearing to its May 9th meeting; and,
WHEREAS, On April 24, 2017, the Applicant submitted revised project plans. The
proposed revisions reduced the overall structure size (Proposed 4,507), increased the rear
yard setback, reduced the overall height, reducing the size and footprint of the roof skylight,
and mitigated potential privacy impacts to the neighboring properties from the upper level
rear balcony. A notice announcing the availability of the revised project plans and
silhouette, as well as the May 9th continued public hearing, was mailed to property owners
within a 500 -foot radius of the project site on April 28, 2017 and published in the Peninsula
News; and,
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2017, the Planning Commission, after considering public
testimony, approved the revised plans on a vote of 3-1 with Commissioner Bradley
C-1
dissenting and directed Staff to bring a Resolution reflecting the decision for adoption at
the June 13th meeting; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Sections 15303(a)(new
construction) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. Specifically, the
project includes the demolition of an existing single family residence to construct a new
single family residence on a residentially zoned lot. As such, this project has been exempt
from CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 13, 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 Height Variation for the demolition of an existing single family
residence to accommodate the construction of a new 4,507 square foot, two story
residence is warranted because:
A. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process
established by the City. More specifically, the applicant obtained 19 signatures from
properties within 500 feet (31.6%) and 7 signatures out of the 9 property owners
within 100 feet (77.7%), thus fulfilling the requirement of obtaining the signatures of
at least 70% of the landowners within 100 feet and 25% of the total number of
landowners within 500 feet of the project site.
B. The proposed addition that is above 16 feet does not significantly impair a view from
public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian
trails) which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan
as a city -designated viewing area. Additionally, the subject property is not located
within the City's Coastal Specific Plan. As such, the proposed structure will not
significantly impair a view which has been defined in the City's General Plan,
Coastal Specific Plan, or a public trail.
C. The proposed structure is on a site that is not located on a ridge or prominent mass
of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on two sides.
D. The area of a proposed addition that is above sixteen feet in height, as defined in
Section 17.02.040(8) of the Development Code, when considered exclusive of
existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another
parcel. More specifically, the views of Catalina Island and the Pacific Ocean is in the
westerly direction. The residences located to the east on Rue Valois are located
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-16
Page 2 of 10
C-2
approximately 50' higher in elevation, the properties to the north and south are at
similar elevations as the subject property and the properties to the west are across
the street (Palos Verdes Drive South) and are approximately 50' lower in elevation.
Due to the topography, lot configuration and orientation of the second story addition,
no portion of the proposed residence over sixteen feet will affect views from the
viewing area of neighboring properties.
F. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application. Cumulative view impairment is determined by: (a) considering the
amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structure
that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen
feet in height; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be
caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions
that exceed sixteen feet in height. More specifically, in evaluating the impacts of a
similar project as the proposed project on parcels adjacent to the subject property:
30703, 30709, 30723, and 30729 Rue Langlois, no significant view impairment
would exist from the viewing areas of another parcel as the residences located to
the east on Rue Valois are located approximately 50' higher in elevation, the
properties to the north and south are at similar elevations as the subject property
and the properties to the west are across the street (Palos Verdes Drive South) and
are at approximately 50' lower in elevation.
G. The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements, including the
development standards and guidelines of the RS -4 zoning district, including but not
limited to, lot coverage and setbacks.
H. The proposed addition is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in
terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style, and bulk and mass.
The homes in the immediate neighborhood range in size from 2,030 square feet to
5,465 square feet. The resulting structure size for the proposed project, at 4,507
square feet (garage included), will be within range of the homes in the immediate
neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed lot coverage and setbacks are consistent
with those of the surrounding properties. The proposed project includes multiple
breaks and articulation in the facade with the use of a mansard roof, a porch, and
the materials to minimize possible bulk and mass impacts as seem from all vantage
points. The architectural style of the proposed residence would maintain the
architectural style found in the immediate neighborhood by utilizing stucco siding
and tile roof materials, similar to the materials found in the immediate neighborhood.
The proposed new structure that is above 16 feet in height does not result in an
unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences.
The proposed second story structure includes a second story balcony along the rear
facade of the residence that will allow a view of the rear yard areas of the abutting
properties located at 30723 Rue Langlois and 30709 Rue Langlois. However, to
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-16
Page 3 of 10
C-3
mitigate any potential privacy impacts, the proposed balcony areas are set back
from the rear fagade of the residence and the siting area of the balcony is placed in
between the main structure of the second story, allowing minimal visibility onto the
neighbor's property to the north and south.
Section 2: The Grading Permit is warranted to accommodate the proposed
residence, including maximum depth of cut, slope percentage, and the maximum allowable
wall heights. Specifically, the proposed project does not exceed that which is necessary for
the permitted primary use of the lot. The grading primarily occurs underneath the proposed
structure to lower the building pad and to accommodate the construction of the residence.
The proposed grading would allow the applicant to reasonably help mitigate the impact of
bulk and mass of the proposed structure by constructing the residence at a lower grade
reducing its visible appearance from the public right-of-way and surrounding properties.
Section 3: The Site Plan Review is warranted for the proposed residence and
accessory structures would comply with the required residential setback standards, lot
coverage and the maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for
the RS -4 zone. Specifically, the proposed project will conform to the required setbacks and
the proposed lot coverage will not exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage in the RS -4
zone (50%).
Section 4: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal the project to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections
17.02.040(C)(1)(g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be
filed with the City, in writing, setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions
requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee, no later than
fifteen (15) days following June 13, 2017, the date of the Planning Commission's final
action.
Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Height
Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review to allow the applicant to demolish an
existing single family residence to construct a new 4,507 square foot, two-story residence
(garage included), 424 square feet of balconies, and 106 cubic yards of grading (cut/fill) to
accommodate the improvements, subject to the Conditions of approval in the attached
Exhibit 'A'.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-16
Page 4 of 10
C-4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, Tomblin, Nelson, Vice Chairman James
NOES: Commissioner Bradley
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Leon
RECUSSALS:
ABSENT: Chairman Cruikshank
William J. Jam4s
Vice Chairman
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Director of Community Development
Secretary to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-16
Page 5 of 10
C-5
EXHIBIT'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00162
(HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW)
30717 RUE LANGLOIS
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 the 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, 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. Substantial changes to
the project shall be considered a revision and require approval by the final body that
approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental
review and public notification.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-16
Page 6 of 10
C-6
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 or 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
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-16
Page 7 of 10
C-7
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.
15. A minimum 2 -car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space
being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of
9' in width and 20' in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance.
16. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section
17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is
permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of
a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is
physically located.
17. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
18. 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.
19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the
project's compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445
and the City Municipal Code requirements regarding wood -burning devices.
20. 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.
21. If 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, the applicant shall provide temporary construction fencing, as
defined in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. Unless required to
protect against a safety hazard, temporary construction fencing shall not be erected
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-16
Page 8 of 10
M•
sooner than 15 days prior to commencement of construction.
Project Specific Conditions:
22. This approval is for the following:
A. Demolish an existing single-family residence.
B. Construct a 3,796 square -foot, 2 -story single-family residence and a 711
square -foot 3 -car garage (total 4,507 square feet).
C. Construct 424 square feet of balconies.
D. Construct 594 square feet of first floor covered patio area along the front and
rear fagades.
E. Install a skylight on the west side of the highest roof ridge line.
F. Change the current driveway configuration to a new direct access garage.
G. Conduct 106 cubic yards of grading (cut), to accommodate the proposed
improvements.
BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection.
23. The height of the approved residence shall be as depicted on the stamped
APPROVED plans and in no case shall the maximum height extend above a height
of 23'-8 W as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure
(elev. 296.25') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 319.93'); and a height of
22'-3", as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the
structure (elev. 297.70') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 319.93').
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.
24. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
project shall maintain a maximum of 42.3% lot coverage.
25. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 21'-0" front, 65'-8" rear, 6'-8"
north side and 6'-6" south side. BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to
foundation forms inspection.
26. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not
exceed 50%.
27. The proposed chimney may project a maximum of 2' into any required setback, and
shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform
Building Code.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-16
Page 9 of 10
C-9
28. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the applicant shall submit
complete Landscape Plans to the Planning Division for review and approval by the
Community Development Director. 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. Newly planted trees shall not exceed 16' in height, or the highest roof
ridgeline, whichever is lower.
29. The following minimum driveway widths and turning radii shall be provided for all
driveways leading from the street of access to a garage or other parking area on a
residential parcel:
A. The driveway shall be a minimum width of ten feet.
B. The driveway shall take into account the driveway standards required by the
department of public works for driveway entrances located in the public right-
of-way.
C. Portions of the driveway that is located adjacent to the side property line
shall provide a minimum eighteen -inch -wide landscaped area between the
side property line and the adjacent driveway, unless such buffer would
reduce the minimum width of the driveway to less than ten feet, in which
case the width of the landscape buffer may be narrowed or eliminated at the
discretion of the Director.
D. All driveways shall be built and maintained in accordance with the
specifications of the Los Angeles County fire department.
30. The proposed A/C unit shall comply with the required side and/or rear setbacks.
31. The proposed A/C unit shall be screened from view from adjacent public right-of-
way with foliage or other appropriate screening.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-16
Page 10 of 10
C-10
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 13, 2017
CALL TO ORDER
4k
Approved 6/27/172
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman James at 7:05 p.m.at the Fred Hesse
Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Director Mihranian led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ATTENDANCE
Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, Leon, Nelson, Tomblin, and Vice
Chairman James.
Absent: Chairman Cruikshank was excused.
Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Deputy Director Kim,
Senior Planner Alvarez, and Assistant City Attorney Gerli.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was unanimously approved as presented.
COMMUNICATIONS
Director Mihranian reported that the City Council is in the process of considering initiating
various Staff -proposed code amendment proceedings to amend certain sections of the
Development Code to correct inconsistencies and to provide further clarification. The
Planning Commission will be reviewing the proposed amended language this summer in
order to forward a recommendation for the Council's consideration late this year. He
reported that the Planning Commission will be considering later this summer an
amendment to the Land Use Map and the Zoning Map as part of the City's consideration
to annex three properties on Rue La Charlene. The Director also reported that at the
June 6th meeting, the City Council continued to a date uncertain, the introduction of an
Ordinance that would amend the City's Fire Code, due to concerns on how the amended
Fire Code would impact property owners. Lastly, Director Mihranian reported that the
City Council will consider an appeal of the Commission's approval of a new single-family
residence on Rolling Ridge Road at its June 20th meeting. He noted the appeal pertains
to a condition related to view protection.
D-1
Director Mihranian noted that late correspondence was distributed for Agenda Item Nos.
2 and 3, and reminded the Commission that a mandatory sexual harassment training
course will be held at Hesse Park on August 29th at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Emenhiser announced his and Chairman Cruikshank's candidacy for City
Council in November.
Commissioner Tomblin noted that he has received several inquiries regarding the
Commission's review of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities in the public right-of-way,
and would discuss this later in the meeting under Future Agenda Items.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda item):
Gene Steiger expressed his opposition to a proposed cell site at 28809 Crestridge Road.
He described the mock-up that is directly opposite his driveway indicating that the facility
will be visible from many rooms in his home. He explained that this neighborhood has
underground utilities, so there are no wires or poles in the view frame. He felt that the
cell site tower and large equipment box violates neighborhood compatibility guidelines
and will impact the property values in the neighborhood. He felt a more suitable site can
be found, and invited the Commissioners to come by his home to see how it will impact
his home.
Jeff Calvagna stated he is an electrical frequency engineer, and has spoken before the
City Council and the Palos Verdes Estates Planning Commission many times in regards
to the cell sites. He stated the proposal that will be before the Commission does not meet
the requirements of the City Ordinances. He asked the Commission to review Sections
under Title 12 of the City's codes in regards to cell sites.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the May 9, 2017 Minutes
Commissioners Emenhiser, Leon, and Tomblin noted they were not in attendance at this
meeting and would have to recuse themselves from the vote.
Commissioner James noted a clarification on page 1 of the minutes.
Director Mihranian noted that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes, and that
the corrected May 9th minutes will be brought back for the Commission's approval at the
June 27th meeting.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No ZON2016-
00162): 30717 Rue Langlois
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2017
Page 2
D-2
Director Mihranian presented a brief staff report, explaining that at the May 91h Planning
Commission meeting, the Commission moved to approve the project as modified by the
applicant and directed Staff to return with a Resolution for adoption this evening. He
stated the Commission closed the public hearing at the May 9th meeting, and he noted
there is one speaker present who would like to speak on this item tonight. He explained
it is at the Commission's pleasure as to whether or not they want to open the public
hearing to hear public testimony.
Commissioner Nelson stated that the public hearing has been closed, and he would prefer
that it remain closed.
Vice Chairman James agreed that was procedurally the correct way to go about this,
however he also noted the Commission is here to serve the public and a member of the
public is requesting to speak.
Commissioner Leon felt that the Commission should remain transparent, and if there is a
request to speak, the request should be granted.
Commissioner James reopened the public hearing.
Yantien Wong stated she was seeking clarification on the Commission's explanation of
appropriate neighborhood scale. She stated that at the first public hearing the
Commission seemed to agree that the design was not in scale with the neighborhood, yet
at the second public hearing the house was approved even though it is proposed as a
two-story house at 4,500 square feet. She stated that she did not feel this redesigned
project is to scale with the rest of the neighborhood. She asked that the Commission
state, for the record, that a 4,500 square foot two-story house is compatible with the
neighborhood. She stated that if the Commission cannot make that statement, the project
should be appealed, and she should not have to pay for that appeal. She stated that she
may eventually remodel her home and wanted to know what the parameters to do so
would be in terms of the size and height of the proposed home.
Commissioner James asked Staff if it was appropriate for the Commission to attempt to
respond to the speaker.
Director Mihranian stated that he felt the Commission has responded to the speaker's
concerns as reflected in the Resolution. He stated the Resolution findings discusses the
project's compatibility with the neighborhood in terms of size and bulk and mass.
Commissioner Emenhiser explained that a quantifiable window or envelope has not been
established through a ratio process. Therefore, what the speaker is asking for under the
current rules, is not something the Commission can give.
Vice Chairman James stated the process is subjective, which is why there is a Planning
Commission to make these decisions based on the City's Code.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2017
Page 3
D-3
Vice Chairman James closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Nelson moved to approve and adopt Staff's recommendation.
Assistant City Attorney Gerli explained there are three Commissioners present who were
not present at the May 9th meeting when the decision was made. However, she stated
that if the Commissioners read the staff report and watched the video and are familiar
with the entirety of the record they may vote on the passage of the Resolution.
Commissioner Tomblin stated that he had not watched the video, and would therefore
recuse himself from the vote.
Commissioner Emenhiser stated that the standard in the past was whether or not the
Commissioner had read the minutes from the meeting in question. He asked if that does
not apply anymore.
Assistant City Attorney Gerli answered that if the subject has to do with property
entitlements, then watching the meeting video and reading the staff report are the
standard.
Commissioner Emenhiser noted the previous standard was to review the minutes, and
asked if the Commissioners are now being asked to either read the staff report, view the
video, or do both.
Assistant City Attorney Gerli stated that if the current standard is to review the minutes,
then for now that is what should be required. Therefore, if a Commissioner has read the
meeting minutes, they may participate in the vote.
Commissioner Emenhiser stated he has reviewed the minutes, but not watched the video,
but felt he could participate in the vote.
Commissioner Tomblin stated he had also reviewed the minutes, but not watched the
video, but felt he could participate in the vote. He noted that he was at the meeting in
March when this project was first heard by the Commission.
Commissioner Leon stated he has read the minutes but not watched the video, but was
going to recuse himself from the vote.
Director Mihranian noted there was a quorum to vote on the motion and that there is a
motion on the floor, but no second to the motion.
Commissioner Emenhiser seconded the motion.
Commissioner Bradley stated he was the dissenting vote at the previous meeting, and
still strongly opposes the project based on bulk and mass. He felt this project is beyond
the bulk and mass found in the neighborhood, and relies on the corner lot which he stated
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2017
Page 4
ME
was an outlier in terms of numbers. He stated that he would still encourage his fellow
Commissioners not to support the project.
Vice Chairman James asked Staff if the Commission had any authority to waive the
appeal fee, or if this was something the speaker should request from the City Council.
Director Mihranian answered that pursuant to the Council -adopted Fee Schedule and the
Municipal Code, there is an appeal fee to file an appeal to the City Council, however the
fee is refundable if the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision, and
is partially refundable if the Council makes certain modifications to the project.
The motion to accept Staff's recommendation to adopt P.C. Resolution 2017-16
thereby conditionally approving a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan
Review was approved, (4-1-1) with Commissioner Bradley dissenting and
Commissioner Leon abstaining.
Commissioner Emenhiser moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that the filing fee for an appeal of this project be waived, seconded by
Commissioner Bradley.
Commissioner Nelson stated that he understood the reasoning behind the motion,
however it was setting a bad precedence for future cases. He stated that he could not
support the motion.
Commissioner Emenhiser recalled that the Planning Commission has made this type of
recommendation in the past on particularly controversial issues that may be appealed to
the City Council.
Director Mihranian explained that the Municipal Code is very clear as to what applications
the City Council can waive fees for and under what circumstances. He pointed out that
any change to a decision made by the Planning Commission that is before the City
Council on appeal would qualify for some type of refund if the Council modifies the
Commission's decision.
Commissioner James stated that he agreed with Commissioner Nelson that this was not
the correct process, also pointing out that the motion to approve the project passed. He
stated that he has sympathy for the neighbors, however there are rules the Planning
Commission must apply to each project and certain findings that must be made.
The motion failed, (2-4) with Commissioners Nelson, Tomblin, Leon, and Vice
Chairman James dissenting.
3. Appeal of View Preservation Notice of Decision (Case No. ZON2016-00015): RPV
Estates HOA
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2017
Page 5
D-5
August 3, 2017
Anthony Ogundipe, M.D.
30717 Rue Langlois
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY AND E-MAIL
Brian Campbell, Mayor
Jerry v. Duhovic, Mayor Pro Tem
Susan M. Brooks, Councilwoman
Ken Dyda, Councilman
Anthony Misetich, Councilman
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Ara Mihranian, Director
Jason Caraveo, Assistant Planner
Community Development Department
Re: 30717 Rue Langlois
Hearing Date: August 15, 2017
Case No. ZON2016-00162
Approval of Compromise Supported by Appellant and Director Mihranian
Dear Mayor Campbell, Council Members, Director Mihranian, and Assistant Planner Caraveo:
My wife Nhi Tran and I are the homeowners at 30717 Rue Langlois (the "Property"). We
bought the Property because of where, and how, it was situated. We have always loved the
beautiful views in Rancho Palos Verdes, and how near we are to the ocean.
I'm a practicing Obstetrician Gynecologist, and a 10 -year veteran of the United States
Army where I served as a doctor and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. My family has lived in
Rancho Palos Verdes for over twenty years. My four daughters all attended Peninsula High
School. My wife and I purchased the Property in hopes of building a dream home to live and
retire in, with space for my girls and their families to return and visit.
Our street, Rue Langlois, is part of a terraced community between Palos Verdes Drive
West and Via Rivera further up the hill. The houses on Rue Langlois are all built on one side of
E-1
the street above PV Drive West. This allows residents to have sweeping views of the ocean
from both first and second stories. The next street up the hill is Rue Valois. Residents of that
street also have panoramic ocean views available from two stories. Those views are completely
unobstructed by the houses on our street because their building pads are approximately 50 feet
higher in elevation than those on our street.
Houses in our neighborhood were originally built around 1960. The original 1960s
homes were typically one story and averaged about 2,200 square feet. As Commissioner
Nelson noted during the Planning Commission meetings, ours is a neighborhood in transition.
As we move into the 215t century, homeowners are remodeling or building bigger houses in our
community, and planning second stories to take advantage of Rancho Palos Verdes' beautiful
views. Examples of this trend can be found at 30823 Langlois, 30831 Langlois and 30917
Langlois. These new homes and mine will increase the value of the remaining properties in our
neighborhood, not just our own.
We retained Louis Tomaro as our architect because of his experience with and
sensitivity to neighborhood compatibility issues, and his ability to design lovely homes that fit
nicely in their surrounding neighborhoods. He originally designed a 6,042 sq. ft. two-story
house (the "Project") on three levels.
We submitted the application for our new home on April 14, 2016. We have been in
careful communication with RPV planning staff since that time. On March 28, 2017, the
Planning Commission opened the public hearing. Some neighbors supported the Project, and
others opposed it, expressing concerns about view, mass and privacy impacts. Mr. Tomaro met
with the neighbors so that we could better understand and accommodate their concerns.
The initial Staff Report noted the 50 -foot difference in pad elevation between the
houses on Rue Valois and the houses on our street. Staff concluded that the Project would not
significantly impair the views from those houses or unreasonably infringe upon their privacy for
that reason. Staff also considered the privacy of our north and south neighbors on Rue
Langlois and made related recommendations we took into account.
At the first hearing on the Project in March, the Planning Commission gave us very
specific direction about what they would like to see in terms of a redesign. Attached to this
letter is a copy of the first three pages of the May 9, 2017 Staff Report which identified the
requested changes. It also details how we revised the Project after the March hearing to
specifically address each of those concerns. Among other things, we reduced the highest
ridgeline by approximately 2 feet to 23'8 %", we eliminated the flat roof at the center of the
residence, we reduced the scale and height of the two-story feature, we relocated a skylight to
minimize light impacts on our Rue Valois neighbors, and we reduced the building footprint at
the rear to align with the rear fagade of neighboring houses.
2
E-2
At the May 9, 2017 hearing, the Planning Commission praised our efforts to modify our
design to respond to their requests. The Planning Commission approved our revised plans 3 to
1, and directed Staff to bring a resolution conditionally approving the Project as revised.
On June 13, 2017, Staff presented the resolution approving our Project for consideration
and approval by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the Project by a
4-1-1 vote, with one commissioner abstaining.
On June 27, 2017, Yantien Wong, the neighbor who lives straight up from us on Rue
Valois, appealed the Planning Commission's decision. She was the only one to file an appeal.
The matter was scheduled for a City Council hearing on August 15, 2017.
After the appeal was filed, I asked Mr. Tomaro to reach out to Ms. Wong and Director
Mihranian to figure out if we could reach a compromise to resolve the appeal that would also
have Director Mihranian's support. Ms. Wong requested an additional height reduction. The
ultimate outcome of these discussions was a compromise: We agreed to lower the main ridge
height 12 more inches, and Ms. Wong agreed that a basement feature could be added back in.
Mr. Tomaro has submitted revised plans consistent with the agreed compromise.
Director Mihranian has said that he will recommend the compromise, including the basement.
The Planning Commissioners had also supported a basement concept when it was part of an
earlier design. The basement feature is below ground. It will not change the footprint of the
house and it will have no impact on our neighbors. I am told that the plans as revised have the
support of both Ms. Wong and Mr. Posada, my immediate neighbor to the south.
We have done our best to be good neighbors throughout this process, including in
connection with this latest compromise. With the recommendation of Director Mihranian, and
Ms. Won's consent and support, we believe our new home should be a valuable addition to
our changing community. We respectfully request that the City Council approve our Project as
modified based on the compromise with Ms. Wong.
We thank the City Council, Director Mihranian, and Staff for their time and consideration.
Architect Tomaro and I are glad to answer any additional questions and to provide more details
concerning the Project as modified at the City Council hearing on the Project.
Sincerely,
Anthony Ogundipe, M.D.
3
E-3
Jason Caraveo
From: YanTien Wong <yani.wong.2015@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 6:43 PM
To: Jason Caraveo
Subject: Re: 30717 Rue Langlois Appeal
Yes that Jason, I can support the project with the changes that you described in the email below.
Thank you,
Yani Wong
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Jason Caraveo <JasonCkIpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Mrs. Wong,
I'm just sending you a confirmation email about what we discussed earlier for the 30717 Rue Langlois Project.
I just want to make sure that you are comfortable with the modifications the Applicant has presented you to
reduce the height of the overall structure by one foot, keep the proposed 4,507 square foot structure size above
grade, include a new 810 square foot basement, and keep the three -car garage with one parking space that is
tandem? Can you please provide me a response by tomorrow morning?
Thank you,
Jason Caraveo
Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.Kpvca.gov
Phone: (310) 544-5232 — Fax: (310) 544-5293
4asonc a(�rpvca.gov
1
F-1