The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2015_05_05_01_Knoll_View_Drive_AppealCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PUBLIC HEARING Date: May 5, 2015 Subject: 2nd Appeal of a Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope Permit & Site Plan Review for a New Residence on a Vacant Property Subject Property: Vacant Lot (APN 7566-006-018) 1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 2. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Knight 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Associate Planner Mikhail 4. Public Testimony: Applicant: Mr. Amir Esfahani Appellant: Stanley Dennis Legal Representative for appellant 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Knight 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: Public Hearing Cover Page A ^f CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, AICP, COMMUN Y EV OPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 5, 2015 SUBJECT: 2ND APPEAL OF A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT, EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A NEW RESIDENCE ON A VACANT PROPERTY (CASE NO. ZON2011- 00280). REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MAN Project Planner: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner (�yo RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2015-_, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00280), for the construction of a 4,870 square foot, two-story residence and 213 cubic yards of associated grading on a vacant lot (APN 7566-006-018) located on Knoll View Dr. Quasi -Judicial Decision This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to support approval of a development application. The specific findings of fact are listed and discussed in this Staff Report. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2011, an application was submitted by Mr. Amir Esfahani requesting approval of a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 2 -story single-family residence and garage on an existing vacant lot. The project included grading for the creation of a new driveway, motor court, and front yard area, along with accessory structures in the rear yard area. After multiple revisions were made to the project, the application was deemed complete on November 4, 2013. 1 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 On December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing and found that the proposed residence was not compatible with the neighborhood based on the proposed structure's bulk and mass. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the proposed grading for the new driveway, motor court and courtyard was excessive. After the applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension, which established a new decision deadline of April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on this item to February 11, 2014, to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project and address the concerns raised by Staff and the Planning Commission at the public hearing (see attached minutes). On February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised project, which involved a reduction in the square footage of the residence from 5,597 square feet to 5,203 square feet, reduction in the amount of overall grading from 712 cubic yards to 466 cubic yards, increased side and rear yard setbacks, and the processing of an Extreme Slope Permit for a deck to extend over an extreme slope in the front yard of the project site. While the applicant attempted to address some of the concerns raised at the December 10th Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission found that the proposed project continued to result in excessive grading and was not compatible with the neighborhood. As such, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07, denying, without prejudice, the requested application, on a 3 to 1 vote with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, and Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin, and Chairman Emenhiser absent (see attached Resolution and Minutes). On February 26, 2014, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, requesting another opportunity to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns. Given the applicant's desire to further redesign the project, the City Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration (see attached Minutes). In July and October 2014, revised plans (and updated geology) were submitted to the City which proposed to reduce the overall size of the project, provide additional setbacks and articulation to the two-story structure, and eliminate the direct access driveway from Knoll View Dr., thereby providing access to the property via an existing private driveway easement adjacent to the north property line of the subject property. The application was deemed complete on October 30, 2014, and on November 6, 2014, a 30 -day public notice for the revised project was sent to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 6, 2014. On December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the merits of the further -revised project and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014- 35 (attached) on a 5-1 vote, with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting and Commissioner Gerstner absent. On January 2, 2015, Mr. Stanley Denis, an attorney representing the property owners located at 29848 Knollview Dr. ("Appellant"), submitted a timely appeal of the Planning 2 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 Commission's decision to approve the abovementioned, revised project on the subject vacant lot. The Appellant's representative asserts a legal opinion that the City's Planning Commission erroneously approved the revised project on December 9, 2014, predicated upon allowing the Applicant access to Lot 7 (the subject vacant lot) via a private driveway on the Appellant's property (Lot 6). The Appellant does not believe that the Applicant has a legal right/authority to use a driveway along the north side of the vacant lot for ingress/egress purposes (see attachment). On April 2, 2015, a 30 -day public notice for the Appeal hearing before the City Council was sent to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News on April 2, 2015. Aside from the initial appeal letter (attached) Staff did not receive any additional comment letters as a result of the public notice. DISCUSSION A complete description of the revised project that was approved by the Planning Commission, and Staff's Analysis from December 9, 2014, can be found in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (December 9, 2014) and P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35. Additionally, the Planning Commission Staff Reports and Minutes from the all previous public hearings are also attached. A summary of the Planning Commission's decision and the Appellant's appeal are described below. Planning Commission's Decision to Approve the Project on December 9, 2014 When initially presented to the Planning Commission at its December 10, 2013 and February 11, 2014 public hearings, Staff and the Planning Commission were unable to make Neighborhood Compatibility Finding No. 8 for the Applicant's request to construct a new residence on the subject vacant lot. The Planning Commission noted that the proposed residence appeared large as seen from the adjacent properties, as well as when driving along Knoll View Drive, and commented that more revisions were needed to adequately reduce the overall appearance of the structure's perceived bulk and mass. Additionally, the Planning Commission initially felt that the proposed project did not meet six (6) of the nine (9) required grading criterion for approval of a Grading Permit. This was largely due to the fact that the City and Property Owner agreed that they have the legal right to access the subject property via a dedicated access easement over an existing driveway that is part of the two abutting properties (29844 and 29848 Knoll View Drive), making the grading for the proposed driveway unnecessary. These concerns resulted in a project denial that is memorialized in P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07 (attached). Given these concerns, and the City Council's direction on an appeal to remand the project back to the Planning Commission, the applicant further -redesigned the project to eliminate the driveway access from Knoll View, and provide access to the property via the existing driveway easement to the north of the property. As a result, the overall cubic yardage of grading was reduced from 466 cubic yards to 213 cubic yards of total grading (see Table 1 9 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 for grading revisions). The following chart summarizes the changes between the original proposed project presented to the Planning Commission on December 10, 2013, the revised project denied by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2014, and the current further -revised project approved by the Planning Commission (December 9, 2014 shown in bold): Table 1 — Comparison of the Original and Revised Projects for Lot 7 Structure Size Original Project (12-10-14) Denied Project (2-11-14) Change Further - Revised and Approved Project (12-9-14) Change Upper Level 3,077 SF 3,030 SF -47 SF 2,972 SF -58 SF Lower Level 1,837 SF 1,524 SF -313 SF 1,249 SF -275 SF Garage 683 SF 649 SF -34 SF 649 SF 0 Total 5,597 SF 5,203 SF -394 SF 4,870 -333 SF Lot Coverage 40% 39.6% -0.4% 38.7% -0.9% Grading Cut 162 CY 106 CY -56 CY 27 CY -79 CY Fill 600 CY 360 CY -240 CY 186 CY -174 CY Total 762 CY 466 CY -296 CY 213 CY -253 CY Setbacks Front 35'-10" 35'-10" 0 35'-10" 0 North Side 7'-6" 8'-0" + 6" W-0" 0 South Side 5'-0" 6'-6" + V-6" 8'-6" + 2'-0" Rear 40'-4" 46'-5" + 6'-1" 46'-5" 0 The Planning Commission's approval of the project on December 9, 2014 was because the revised project reduces the size of the residence, as well as slightly increases the structure setbacks. The rear fagade of the residence is now slightly setback behind the rear fapade of the neighboring residence to the south, thereby maintaining a rear yard setback that is similar to the rear yard setbacks found on adjacent properties with similar lot configurations. Additionally, the revised structure now includes an abundance of undulating facades to break up the appearance of the two-story structure as seen from the street and surrounding residences. The applicant has further articulated the north and south facades by combining arches and low planters to soften the appearance of the residence as viewed from the closest neighboring properties. Furthermore, the Planning Commission believes that the grading associated with the further -revised project does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot (residential use), and that the grading 11 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 which is proposed to allow access from a private driveway easement minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The revised grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by maintaining the existing slope at the front of the subject property and provided access across the shared, private driveway easement, which is similar to and compatible with ingress/egress access found across other properties in the immediate neighborhood. All of the specific findings for a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Extreme Slope Permit that were required to be made by the Planning Commission in order to approve the proposed project, are listed below. Staff is recommending that that City Council affirm the same findings to approve the proposed project and deny the appeal. Height Variation Findings 1. The applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process established by the city. 2. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does notsignificantlyimpaira viewfrom 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 city -designated viewing areas. 3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. 4. The area of a proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or an addition to an existing structure 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. 5. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is determined not to be significant, as described in Finding No. 4, the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view. 6. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be 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. 7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements. 8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. 9. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. 5 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahani May 5, 2015 Grading Findings 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17.96 of the Municipal Code. 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(6), is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from pre -construction (existing grade). 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. 4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography. 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Chapter 17.02. 6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillsides areas. 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements, which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. 8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. 9. Grading conforms to the standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill, and height of retaining walls. 10. The director may grant a grading permit for development in excess of that permissible under subsection (E)(9) of this section upon finding that: a. The criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) of this section are satisfied; b. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of this section; C. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) of this section will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity; and d. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) of this section will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property; e. Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given to only the applicant/Any interested person may appeal the director's decision Al • Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahani May 5, 2015 to the planning commission and the planning commission decision to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures of this title. Extreme Slope Permit Findings The director may grand an extreme slope permit only upon finding: a. That the site cannot reasonable accommodate the structure except on an extreme slope; b. That the permit will result in no significant adverse effect on neighboring properties. Factors to be considered in making this finding shall include: view impairment, visual impact, slope instability, increased runoff and other adverse impacts found to be significant, C. That the structures will not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of occupants of abutting residences; d. That any disturbance of the slope will be insignificant, and e. That the permit is consistent with the general plan, coastal specific plan orany other applicable plan. Appellant's Grounds for Appeal As noted in the Background Section of this Report, the Appellant's representative has asserted a legal opinion that the City's Planning Commission erroneously approved the subject application/project on December 9, 2014, based on a design that allows access across a private driveway easement across the common driveway that is shared by Lots 5 and 6. The Appellant believes that the subject property owner (Lot 7) does not have legal access for ingress/egress purposes over their property (Lot 6). While this issue is a civil issue that would need to be resolved between the two private property owners, pursuant to an agreement or a judicial decree, the City Attorney has reviewed the legal descriptions and titles of both properties. Based on the City's review of the Preliminary Title Reports prepared for each property (Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Tract No. 27142), the title report for Lot 7 states that there is an easement for ingress and egress to Lot 7 (Applicant's property) over the "flag pole" portions of Lot 6 (Appellant's property) and Lot 5. The Appellant's legal representative has noted that he believes that the description of the easement right to Lot 7 is erroneous as the easement is not depicted on the approved Tract Map recorded on April 21, 1965, and that the Corporation Grant Deed recorded on October 13, 1965 did not convey said easement rights. In reviewing the background of the information provided to the City, it appears that Tract No. 27142 was created by an entity known as J.H. Barton Construction Co., Inc. as a legal subdivision on April 21, 1965. There were no ingress/egress easements depicted on the Tract Map over the "flag pole" portions of several lots within that Tract. This means that there is no easement on the map over portions of Lot 5 or Lot 6, in favor of Lot 7, or in favor of each other. (The only easements reflected on the Tract Map were for utilities, sewers and storm drains.) However, as outlined in Corporation Grant Deed 1205, J.H. Barton Construction Co., Inc. g ranted "a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over those portions of Lot 6 and 7 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 the southerly 10.00 feet of Lot 5 of Tract No. 27142" to Ms. Anna M. Duffy, purchasing property owner of Lot 7. Additionally, the title report submitted by the Appellant contains Exception 9 in Schedule B of Appellant's Title Report describing an access easement that was conveyed to Joseph H. Barton on November 21, 1953. Thus, while Staff agrees with the Appellant that there is no indication of an easement on the recorded Tract Map, the absence of the easement on the recorded map does not mean that a legal easement could not have been created by the grant deed. Given the background and information presented to the City by both parties, Staff is of the opinion that there is substantial evidence in the record before the City Council (by virtue of the Grant Deed that was recorded in 1965 and the two title reports) demonstrating that the Applicant (property owner of Lot 7) has an easement for ingress/egress over a portion (the driveway) of the Appellant's (property owner of Lot 6) property and over the corresponding portion of Lot 5. As such, Staff disagrees with the Appellant's assertion that the Planning Commission acted erroneously in approving the revised project on December 9, 2014, which included access over the private driveway easements of Lots 5 and 6. It is important to note that the Planning Commission was aware that that the neighbor was contesting the Applicant's legal access over their driveway. Notwithstanding all of the evidence indicating that the Applicant has a legal right to use the neighbor's property for ingress/egress, the Planning Commission added the following condition of approval: 26. Prior to ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, the property owner (applicant) shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, that they have legal access to the subject property from the private driveway easement along the north side property line that is consistent with the driveway design approved by the Planning Commission, including the removal of any trees to allow for said legal access. The City Attorney has revised that language to read as follows: 26. The applicant has provided documentation in the form of a grant deed and title report to the City demonstrating that they have legal access to the subject property from the private driveway easement along the north side property line that is consistent with the driveway design approved by the Planning Commission, including the removal of any trees to allow for said legal access. If the appellant or another affected party files a lawsuit challenging this decision and/or files a lawsuit challenging the right to use the common driveway over lots 5 and 6, the City shall not issue a building or grading permit to the applicant until such litigation is finally resolved or a court order is issued that requires or allows the City to issue the permits. Should the Appellant assert their own civil action against the Applicant, resulting in a judicial decision that reverses the language of the recorded easement or title reports, the Applicant would be required to submit a revised project to the City for review and approval. Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahani May 5, 2015 A revised project would need to be submitted to the City before all Planning Entitlements for the subject application (Case No. ZON2011-00280) expire. CONCLUSION Given that the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence indicating that the Planning Commissions acted in error when it approved Case No. ZON2011-00280 for a new two- story residence and grading on a vacant lot, and the Applicant has provided information indicating that they have legal access over a private driveway that accommodates their revised project, Staff recommends that the City Council deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the City Council to consider: 1) Approve the appeal, thereby overturning the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00280), and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next City Council meeting with an appropriate Resolution; or, 2) Hear public testimony this evening, identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a subsequent City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT The Appellant has paid the applicable appeal fees, as established by Resolution of the City Council. If the Appellant is successful in the appeal, and the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project, the Appellant will receive a full refund of their appeal fee. Thus, all costs associated with the processing of the appeal will come from the City's General Fund. ATTACHMENTS • Draft Resolution No. 2015-_ (Denying Appeal) (Page 11) • Letter of Appeal and Appellant's Title Report (Page A-1) • Applicant's Title Report (Page A-20) • P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 (Page A-42) • P.C. Minutes from December 9, 2014 (Page A-55) • Late Correspondence from December 9, 2014 P.C. Meeting (Page A-62) • P.C. Staff Report from December 9, 2014 (Page A-67) • City Council Minutes from April 15, 2014 (Page A-91) • City Council Staff Report from April 15, 2014 (Page A-93) 01 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 • Planning Commission Minutes from February 11, 2014 (Page A-100) • P.0 Resolution No. 2014-07 (Denial) (Page A-106) • Planning Commission Staff Report from February 11, 2014 (Page A-111) • Planning Commission Minutes from December 10, 2013 (Page A-133) • Planning Commission Staff Report from December 10, 2013 (Page A-136) • Email from Appellant's Attorney (Page A-179) • Project Plans (delivered under separate cover) 10 Draft C.C. Resolution No. 2015 - (Denial of Appeal) 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2015- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT, EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,870 SQUARE FOOT TWO- STORY RESIDENCE, 213 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING, AN ENTRY DECK THAT EXTENDS A MAXIMUM OF 6'-0" OVER AN EXTREME SLOPE, AND OTHER ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT (APN 7566- 006-018) (CASE NO. ZON2011-00280) WHEREAS, on April 21, 1965, Tract Map 27142 was recorded with the County of Los Angeles, thereby creating the subject property along with the other properties within the Miraleste Hills community; and, WHEREAS, on October 10, 2011, the applicant submitted a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Pian Review application to the Community Development Department requesting approval of a new 6,105 square foot, two-story, residence and garage on an existing vacant lot, including 762 cubic yards of grading; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2011, the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, after the submittal of additional information and revised plans reducing the scale of the project and grading, the applicant submitted the last remaining information on October 29, 2013 and November 1, 2013; and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, Staff deemed the project complete; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. At that time, the Planning Commission found that the proposed project was not compatible with the immediate neighborhood based on the bulk and mass of the proposed structure. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the proposed grading for the new driveway/motor court and courtyard was excessive. After the applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension to the Permit Streamlining Act, which established a new decision deadline of April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to February 11, 2014 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address the concerns raised by the Staff and the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised project, which involved a reduction in the square footage of the residence from 5,597 square feet to 5,203 square feet, reduced amount of overall grading from 712 cubic yards to 466 cubic 12 yards, increased side and rear yard setbacks, and the submittal of an Extreme Slope Permit for a deck to extend over an extreme slope in the front yard of project site. While the applicant attempted to address some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission, the proposed project continued to result in excessive grading and was not compatible with the neighborhood. As such, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-07, denying, without prejudice, the application request, on a 3 to 1 vote with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, and Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin, and Chairman Emenhiser absent; and, WHEREAS, On February 26, 2014, the applicant (Amir Esfahani) appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council requesting another opportunity to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns. Given the applicant's desire to further modify the project, the City Council, at its April 16, 2014 meeting, remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration; and, WHEREAS, in July and October 2014, revised plans (including an updated geotechnical report) were submitted to the City further reducing the overall size of the project, providing additional setbacks and articulation to the two-story structure, and eliminating the direct access driveway from Knoll View Dr., thereby providing access to the property via a private driveway easement adjacent to the north property line of the subject property. WHEREAS, on October 30, 2014, the revised project was deemed complete for processing; and, WHEREAS, on November 6, 2014, a 30 -day public notice for the revised project was sent to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 6, 2014; and, WHEREAS, On December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission considered the merits of a further -revised project to allow the construction of a 4,870 square foot, two-story residence, 213 cubic yards of grading, an entry deck that extended a maximum of 6-0" over an extreme slope, and other ancillary site improvements. The revised project also included ingress/egress access over a private driveway easement that traverses two flag lots located behind the subject, vacant property (29844 Knollview and 29848 Knollview). Ultimately, the Planning Commission approved the revised project, and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 on a 5-1 vote, with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting and Commissioner Gerstner absent; and, WHEREAS, on January 2, 2015, Mr. Stanley Denis, an attorney representing the property owners located at 29848 Knollview Dr. ("Appellant"), submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the abovementioned, revised project on the subject vacant lot. The Appellant's representative asserted a legal opinion that the City's Planning Commission erroneously approved the revised project on December 9, 2014, predicated upon allowing the Applicant access to Lot 7 (the subject vacant lot) via a private driveway on the Appellant's property (Lot 6). The Appellant did not believe that the Applicant has a legal right/authority to use a driveway along the north side of the vacant lot for ingress/egress purposes. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 2 of 14 13 WHEREAS, on April 2, 2015, Staff mailed notices for a City Council appeal hearing to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius from the subject property, providing a 30 -day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on July 14, 2011; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. Seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. Seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that ZON2011-00280 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found by the City Council to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303) since the project involves construction of a new residence on a legally subdivided residential lot; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Appellant's representative has asserted a legal` opinion that the City's Planning Commission erroneously approved the subject application/project on December 9, 2014, based on a design that allows access across a private driveway easement. The Appellant believes that the subject property owner (Lot 7) does not have legal access for ingress/egress purposes over their property (Lot 6). While this issue is a civil issue that ultimately would need to be resolved between the two private property owners in a'judicial proceeding, the City Attorney has reviewed the legal descriptions and title reports for both properties as well as a Condition of Approval that was imposed by the Planning Commission to address a potential, future civil dispute related to access. Based on the City's review of the Preliminary Title Reports prepared for each property (Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Tract No. 27142), the title ;report for Lot 7 states that there is an easement for ingress and egress to Lot 7 (Applicant's property) over the "flag pole" portions of Lot 6 (Appellant's property) and Lot 5. The Appellant's legal representative has noted that he believes that the description of the easement right to Lot 7 is erroneous as the easement is not depicted on the approved Tract Map recordedon April 21, 1965, and that the Corporation Grant Deed recorded on October 13, 1965 did not convey said easement rights. In reviewing the background of the information provided to the City, it appears that Tract No. 27142 was created by an entity known as J.H. Barton Construction Co., Inc. as a legal subdivision on April 21, 1965. There were no ingress/egress easements depicted on the Tract Map over the "flag pole" portions of several lots within that Tract. This means that there is no easement on the map over portions of Lot 5 or Lot 6, in favor of Lot 7, or in favor of each other. (The only easements reflected on the Tract Map were for utilities, sewers and storm drains.) However, as outlined in Corporation Grant Deed 1205, J.H. Barton Construction Co., Inc. granted "a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over those portions of Lot 6 and the southerly 10.00 feet of Lot 5 of Tract No. 27142" to Ms. Anna M. Duffy, purchasing property owner of Lot 7. Additionally, the title report submitted by the Appellant contains Exception 9 in Resolution No. 2015 - Page 3 of 14 14 Schedule B of Appellant's Title Report describing an access easement that was conveyed to Joseph H. Barton on November 21, 1953. Thus, although there is no indication of an easement on the recorded Tract Map, the absence of the easement on the recorded map does not mean that a legal easement could not have been created by the grant deed. Given the background and information presented to the City by both parties, the City Council finds that there is substantial evidence in the record before the City Council (by virtue of the Grant Deed that was recorded in 1965 and the two title reports) demonstrating that the Applicant (property owner of Lot 7) has an easement for ingress/egress over a portion (the driveway) of the Appellant's (property owner of Lot 6) property and over the corresponding portion of Lot 5. As such, the City Council disagrees with the Appellant's assertion that the Planning Commission acted erroneously in approving the revised project on December 9, 2014, which included access over the private driveway easements of Lots 5 and 6, and therefore rejects the Appellant's appeal. Section 2: The City Council makes the folio` application for a Height Variation to allow the constru residence: A. The applicant has complied with the Early established by the City, and as directed by the mailing reduced copies of the project plans and of the subject property via registered mail. B. The Height Variation is sixteen feet in height d major thoroughfares, bi in the City's General Pi Specifically, due to the area, the proposed stru will therefore, not impai ng findings of fact with respect to the ;ion of a 4,870 square foot two-story Neighborhood Consultation process ;ommunity Development Director, by notice to all landowners within 500 feet rranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, nays, walkways or equestrian trails), which has been identified :)r Coastal Specific Plan, as City -designated viewing areas. ration of the property and the topography in the immediate .e is not visible from a public viewing area or viewing site and view from such public property. C. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject property is located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood, on an existing pad lot, zoned for residential development. The residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Municipal Code. D. The Height Variation is warranted because the portions of the new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, will not significantly impair City -protected views from the viewing areas of neighboring properties. Specifically, properties in the neighborhood which overlook the subject property are at a significantly higher elevation than the pad level of the subject lot, allowing protected viewing areas to continue to have unobstructed views over the proposed new residence and will only block the views of residences or buildings and foliage located down the Resolution No. 2015 - Page 4 of 14 15 hillside, which are not protected views under the Municipal Code. E. The Height Variation is warranted because proposed portions of the new residence that exceed sixteen feet in height are designed to minimize the impairment of a view, as the proposed residence is situated as close to the front of the lot as possible with the current design and at a significantly lower elevation, which allows a better viewing angle over the proposed residence from the upslope neighboring properties. F. The Height Variation is warranted because granting the application would not cause significant cumulative view impairment, as the adjacent parcels located on the same downslope side as the subject parcel have also been constructed with 2 -story residences on a pad level that appears to be at the relatively same elevation as the subject lot and views from the homes above currently exist over those properties. G. The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements, including the RS -2 zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage, property line setbacks, landscaping, and the required garage size for single-family residences that exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. H. The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed residence, as redesigned, is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Specifically, the applicant has redesigned the project to provide undulating facades and articulation around all sides of the residence. Additionally, the applicant has redesigned the proposed driveway to take access from a private driveway easement along the north side of the residence, which is compatible with other residences found along the east side of Knoll View Dr. Furthermore, the proposed -project, is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style and bulk and mass. The proposed lot coverage and setbacks are consistent with those of the surrounding properties. The applicant has redesigned the project to eliminate large retaining walls around the motor court and garage and has provided low-lying planters and arches to break up the overall appearance of the two-story fagade as seen from the properties to the north and south. Additionally, the north -facing second -story fagade is broken up by accommodating covered outdoor living area that are not surrounded by walls, thereby reducing the overall bulk and mass of the structure. The Height Variation is warranted because the portion of the structure above 16 feet will not result in unreasonable infringement of privacy of the abutting residences. Specifically, the adjacent parcel's privacy will not be impacted any differently than what is already experienced, as each of the properties can be seen from Knoll View Drive over the currently vacant subject lot and the view onto the adjacent lots from proposed 2nd_ storywindows, balconies and decks the will not be different from what is currently observed from the street. Section 3: The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the Grading Permit to allow 213 cubic yards of cut and fill Resolution No. 2015 - Page 5 of 14 16 A. The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The subject property is located in a residential area designated by the City's Zoning Map as a RS -2 Zoning District. According to the City's General Plan and Development Code, a single family residence is classified as a permitted primary use in the RS Zoning District. As redesigned, the applicant is proposing a total of 213 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the construction of the new residence and ancillary site improvements. Of the total proposed grading, 160 cubic yards of fill is proposed to accommodate the new driveway/motor court, and 10 cubic yards of fill is proposed to shift the natural grade of the property along the south side of the motor court. The remaining grading accommodates a new pool, a level rear yard and a landing for pedestrian access from Knoll View Dr. Additionally,, the applicant has utilized the private driveway to access the new residence without significantly altering the desired function of the home. Given the steep slopes that descend from the private driveway to the proposed garage, the retaining walls and fill to accommodate access to the garage will not be apparent from neighboring properties. B. The proposed grading/retaining wall would not cause any sign ificant/adverse visual impacts to other neighboring properties as the proposed retaining wall would not be easily visible from other properties as it will face the interior of the lot. Furthermore, a small portion of the wall that may be slightly visible from the right-of-way will be screened by the landscaping in a planter. C. The grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The existing vacant lot was originally created as part of Tract 27142, with an extreme slope between the street and flat portion of the pad lot. Other neighboring lots east of the Knoll View Dr. exhibit similar topographic configurations, with vehicular access accommodated along shared private driveways that extend eastward from Knoll View Dr. The applicant has significantly reduced the scale of grading to accommodate access from the shared private driveway, as opposed to providing access directly off of Knoll View. As'a result, a limited amount of grading (160 cubic yards of fill) is proposed to accommodate the new motor court and access to the garage. Given that a portion of this motor court extends into the existing slope, and would otherwise result in a large retaining wall, the applicant has redirected the contours of the property in a small portion of the property just south of the motor court. The modified contours will be blended to follow the existing slope and the finished contours are reasonably natural as seen from Knoll View Dr 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. A majority of the proposed project will be located on the existing flat pad of the property with some minor grading in the rear yard to accommodate a new pool and flat, useable rear yard. The majority of the proposed grading would be located along the northwestern side of the new residence and would accommodate the construction of a motor court and access from a private Resolution No. 2015 - Page 6 of 14 17 driveway easement to the proposed garage. Given that the property descends approximately 9'-0" from the private easement to the flat pad of the property, the applicant is proposing to raise the finished floor of the garage and fill beneath the motor court to accommodate a raised driveway that accesses the garage. As seen from the private driveway easement and properties to the north, the new driveway on the subject property will appear to be at similar grade elevations as the private driveway easement. The applicant will be maintaining a majority of the extreme slope along the west side of the property, similar to other properties along the east side of Knoll View Dr. Additionally, in order to reduce potential impacts of a raised driveway, the applicant has blended the existing site topography with a man-made slope along the south side of the motor court. E. The grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The redesigned project addresses past concerns related to bulk and mass by providing undulating facades and additional articulation to the first and second floor facades. Additionally, the applicant has redesigned the project to address the grading concerns related to the construction of the new residence by eliminating the direct access driveway from Knoll View, as the Planning Commission found that a direct access driveway was incompatible with the neighborhood. In order to address this concern, the applicant provided access from a legal, private driveway along the north side of the property. This modified access accommodates a design that is compatible with the immediate neighborhood as most of the homes along the east side of Knoll View Dr. are accessed from private driveway easements that extend eastward from Knoll View Dr. F. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. The applicant has redesigned the project to eliminate driveway access from Knoll View. Instead, similar to other homes along the east side of Knoll View Dr., the applicant has provided access to the property via a legal, private driveway that extends eastward from Knoll View Dr.', along the north side of the property. Therefore, as redesigned, the applicant is no longer altering the street design of Knoll View Dr. and is proposing a design that eliminates grading between the existing extreme slope along Knoll View and flat pad portion of the property, and minimizes grading that provides access to the residence along the private driveway, which is consistent with the character of the hillside properties along Knoll View Dr. G. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property. H. The grading conforms to the City's standards for height of cut and fill, and heights of retaining walls. Specifically, the proposed grading would not occur on a lot that was created prior to 1975; the proposed grading will not significantly alter the contours of the lot, and no finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created. Lastly, the project includes one (1) 3'-5" tall upslope retaining wall and one (1) 3'-0" tall downslope retaining wall. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 7 of 14 The City Council makes the "10th Finding" to allow the proposed grading on a slope with a 60% gradient, due to the following facts: 1) As discussed above in paragraphs A through H, the first eight grading criteria that are required to approve a Grading Permit have been met; 2) the request is consistent with the purpose of the Municipal Code; 3) approval of the grading permit will not constitute a special privilege, given that it is consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; 4) departures from the standards of the grading criteria will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other properties in the vicinity. J. A required Notice of Decision will be given to the applicant and to all owners of property located adjacent to the subject property. Specifically, a Notice of Decision will be given to the following people: 1) 29840 Knoll View Dr., 2) 29844 Knoll View Dr., 3) 29848 Knoll View Dr., 4) 29866 Knoll View Dr., 5) 2957 Knoll View Dr., and 29845 Knoll View Dr. Section 4: The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the Extreme Slope Permit to allow a portion of an entry deck in the front yard to extend a maximum of 6 -feet beyond the toe of an extreme slope: B. The Extreme Slope Permit can be supported because the site cannot reasonably accommodate the structure except on an extreme slope because a large portion of the front yard is comprised of an extreme slope and there is a limited amount of useable front yard area to provide access from the street to the residence. Specifically, the subject property is situated where the pad level of the property is located approximately 20 feet below the street Level, with an extreme slope descending from the street to the pad portion of the lot. In order to provide access to the front of the residence, which has been designed with the main, public rooms on the upper level, the proposed walkway bridge over a portion of the extreme slope allows a walkway and usable front yard structure that would connect to steps carved into the slope and up to the street. Due to the design of the project, which is located at the toe of the extreme slope, any manner of providing access to the front of the property would involve going over the extreme slope. The site cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed walkway bridge without encroaching over the extreme slope. C. The Extreme Slope Permit will result in no significant adverse effect on neighboring properties in terms of view impairment, visual impact, slope instability, increased runoff and other adverse impacts. The proposed walkway bridge/deck will be located at the front of the residence, between the proposed new structure and the street. As the extreme slope descends down to the residence, resulting in a valley -like space between the structure and the public right-of-way, there will be no adverse effects to neighboring properties. The sunken location of the deck will not be in any viewing area though it can be seen from the street, similar to other deck structures found on adjacent properties to provide access to the front of the residence. Furthermore, the deck would be required to obtain all building permits that comply with geological and building code requirements Resolution No. 2015 - Page 8 of 14 19 that will address any potential slope stability and/or drainage issues in conjunction with approval with the new residence. C. The Extreme Slope Permit can be supported because the walkway bridge/deck is located at the front of the property and a lower elevation from the street. Due to its location adjacent to the public right-of-way, at a lower elevation from the street, and located 27 feet from the adjacent property to the south, the City Council finds that the deck would not result in any greater infringement of privacy than can be observed from the street. Therefore, Staff believes this finding can be made D. The Extreme Slope Permit can be made because any disturbance to the slope will be insignificant. As designed, there would be four pillars supporting the deck, of which only two will be located on the slope. The deck would then connect to a retaining wall where fill is proposed for a small flat area which would then fill the gap between where the deck ends and the stairs are built into the slope. While there will be a 91 square foot area to provide the graded platform for the deck and slope, any disturbance caused by the proposed deck cantilevering over the slope will be insignificant. K. The Extreme Slope Permit can be granted because the General Plan designates the subject parcel for Residential 1-2 DU/acre, and the proposed deck is consistent with construction for residential development. The purpose of the Residential, 1-2 DU/acre land use designation in the General Plan is to allow for the development of low- to moderate -density residential neighborhoods, including the types of accessory structures normally associated with single-family residences, such as the proposed deck. In addition, Urban Environment Policy No. 3 calls upon the City to "encourage and assistin the maintenance and improvement of- all `existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design." The extreme slope at the front of the 'residence: restricts access to the front of the residence to where the use of a cantilevered deck is both reasonable and consistent with the immediate neighborhood. Also, the subject parcel is not located within the City's Coastal Zone, nor is it subject to any overlay control district standards. Section 5: With regard to the Site Plan Review, the proposed pool, spa, mechanical equipment and site fencing would comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and the maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS -2 zone. Further, as noted in the Height Variation findings above, the addition will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Section 6: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5st day of May 2015. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 9 of 14 20 Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City or Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, the City Clerk of the City of Rancho that the above Resolution No. 2015-_ was duly and regularly. City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on May 5, 2015 Mayor Palos Verdes, do hereby certify passed and adopted by the said City Clerk Page 10 of 14 21 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, ESP, SPR) (APN 7566-006-018.) General Conditions: 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 7. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Codc 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. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 11 of 14 22 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (38.7% proposed). 14. The approved additions shall maintain setbacks as depicted on the APPROVED plans for both the first and second floor additions. BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 15. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 16. A minimum 2 -car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space being Resolution No. 2015 - Page 12 of 14 23 individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9' in width and 20' in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance (3 -car garage proposed). 17. 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. 18. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 19. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 20. 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. Proiect Specific Conditions: 21. This approval is for a 4,870 square -foot, 2 -story single-family residence, which includes a 649 square -foot 3 -car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. 22. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 105.5'. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the Finished Grade Elevation at 79.5'. 23. 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. 24. All existing foliage located on the subject property along the north side property line, adjacent to the private driveway easement, shall be maintained in a thriving manner. Other than trees that need to be permanently removed to allow access to the applicant's property per the approved plan, if any of the existing trees on either property are damaged or removed during construction, the applicant shall provide new trees to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 13 of 14 24 25. No grading or improvement may commence within the private road easement to the north of the subject property without first obtaining written authorization from the legal holders of the private driveway easement to allow proposed grading and improvements within the private street easement. Such authorization shall be in a form that can be recorded and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. If written authorization from the easement holders is not obtained, the plans shall be modified to eliminate improvements from the private driveway easement. Said modified plan may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Condition No. 4. 26. The applicant has provided documentation in the form of a grant deed and title report to the City demonstrating that they have legal access to the subject property from the private driveway easement along the north side property line that is consistent with the driveway design approved by the Planning Commission, including the removal of any trees to allow for said legal access. If the appellant or another affected party files a lawsuit challenging this decision and/or files a lawsuit challenging the right to use the common driveway over lots 5 and 6, the City shall not issue a building or grading permit to the applicant until such litigation is finally resolved or a court order is issued that requires or allows the City to issue the permits. 27. This project includes two retaining walls located adjacent to the proposed new driveway that shall not exceed a height of 3'-5 28. The proposed project includes a total of 213 cubic yards of grading as itemized below: • 27 cubic yards of cut for a new pool and spa • 160 cubic yards of fill for the construction of a new driveway 10 cubic yards of fill along the southwest side of the new driveway • 7 cubic yards of fill for a pedestrian landing in the front yard • 9 cubic yards of fill in the rear yard to the west of the new pool Resolution No. 2015 - Page 14 of 14 25 Letter of Appeal & Appellant's Title Report A-1 LAW OFFICES OF STANLEY DENIS TELEPHONE 3620 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (3 10) 378-4900 SUITE 200 TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 December 31, 2014 Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Case No. ZON2011-00280 Lot 7 of Tract 27142 (APN 756-006-018) Property Owner: Mr. Amir Esfahani Dear Mr. Rojas: FACSIMILE (3101 378-4911 IIECEI\JED 3 AN 0 2 M t;0MMt1N1TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Please be advised that my offices represent S & K Industries, a Nevada Corporation, the owner of the property commonly known as 29848 Knoll View Drive, which is Lot 6 of Tract 27142. My client is appealing the Planning Commission decision to approve the above - referenced project as the Planning Commission Decision is erroneously predicated upon allowing the applicant access to Lot 7 via a private driveway on my client's property. I am enclosing a check from my client in the sum of $2,275.00 related to the appeal. The Planning Commission, and the City staff for that matter, are under the erroneous understanding that the owner of Lot 7 has some legal rights to access Lot 7 via my client's driveway. I They do not. This erroneous understanding appears to have been initially created by a Corporation Grant Deed recorded on November 30, 1965 from J.B. Barton Construction Co., Inc. to Anna M. Duffy. This deed erroneously refers to an easement over portions of Lot 6 and Lot 5, which was purportedly deeded from Barton to Duffy in conjunction with the transfer. of Lot 7 by way of the November 30, 1965 deed. I'm enclosing a copy of that Corporation Grant Deed for your records. ' This erroneous understanding was also apparently held by my clients' previous counsel, Marshall Rutter. A-2 You will note that this deed is not the instrument which created the easement, but rather is merely a document that refers to the easement. In reading the reference to the easement contained within this 1965 deed, you will note that the reference refers to an easement "over those portions of Lot 6 [and Lot 5] as shown on map recorded in Book 740, pages 22 to 25 inclusive of Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county, lying westerly of the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of Lot 7 of said Tract No. 27142." However, the recorded map for Tract 27142 makes no reference at all to any such easement. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the four pages of the recorded map for Tract No. 27142. You will note that the bottom of page 3 identifies Lot 5 and the upper portion of page 4 identifies Lot 6. Neither of these pages make any reference at all to any easement in favor of Lot 7. My client has owned Lot 6 for decades. During this time, my client has allowed occasional and very rare instances of access over its driveway to the owners of Lot 7 or their authorized agent, as a neighborly accommodation to gain access to Lot 7, as Lot 7 was undeveloped with a steep slope and no curb cut. But my client is not agreeing to permit the owner of Lot 7 access over its driveway as envisioned by Planning Commission approval of this project or, for that matter, any project which would require permanent and/or continuous usage/access. Also, to the extent that the plans approved by the Planning Commission allow for the elimination of the existing concrete drainage swale at the bottom of the slope of Lot 7 (along the property line adjoining Lot 6) and do so without providing for an adequate surface drainage design/mechanism to protect my clients property from surface drainage emanating from Lot 7, my client also objects to, and appeals from, that matter. A-3 If you or anyone at the City have any questions or would like to discuss these issues further, I am more than happy to do so. Best regards, LAW OFFICES OF STANLEY DENIS Stanley Dem SD/tlm Enclosures Rojas City of Rancho PV 14.1231 MA i 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY wNeN RaCDADED MAIL Tr Mrs. Anna A. Duffy 1205 i SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE FOR RECORDER'S USE — -HttiaCet 41716:: = AFFIX IR.S.4 2..--�14Ft7'R (�f�ijll��trta=t'1�� .- Corporation Grant Deed TMia roRM IVRNia.Ka ale Tlna INTURANCE AND TRVaT COMO— FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. reecipt of Which is hereby acknowledged. J. H. Barton Construetion Co., Inc. a corporation organized Under the laws of the slate of hereby GRANTS to- Anne oAnna N. Duffy., a married woman as her separate property the following described real property in III - county of Los Angeles state of California: As per attached; in the county of Los Angeles, state of f34apsrnia. tat 7 of Tract No 27142. a es 22 to 25 inclusive of Slaps. as shown on map recorded in �ccrder'of said county. to the office of the county egress over those Portions of A nonsexclusive easement for ingress and Lot 6 and of the southerly 10.00 feet of Lot S oaSTshownNO. an map rcaorded Angeles. state of California"in the office of the the county of Los Ang of the northerly prolongation in Book 740, pages 42 to 25 inclusine wieslterly county recorder of said county, 1Y g of the easterly line of Lot 7 of said Tract Yo. 27142' :n Witness Whereof, said corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed hcrcto and thi insttomenl to be executed by it. Prcaident and Seerrtarr thereunto duly authorized. Dated— — r,.t.Dber13-1%5-- srATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY f_ LGs An�ele5 $S J R Barton_CaA faJ.,L4ti_Ga.. ��,1.tC-. _ tDber 13, 19f S ! On daned, a Notary Public in and for raid CountY and $let. persanolly rzv'- '•- - app,mred�-.�" to an, to he t11r Preridem, end known to me to be jecretary of Iha faryoraNea that muted the By ---- Mlth.o traurrai al, I—. M Inc ro be Ihr persons rha ecec-jla Ae Seere:ary within Inatrumeat an beh..f of it., Cor",Uioa cher<Ia naard, and cel no Ugrd to me Ihat each Corr—,fan ea,euted tha within T,tl,w• its drec,— meat purswm to it, bwLwa w a Irw Ionof hwtd of WITNIESs,mY and end oscnI J. Order r4aly ' �fI7 ,? + •�/ Title ;No.5..�- l�—y- Escrow• or Loan No. 5.1049 -'- \a 'P6FnAtlNthcL tolMal6 nq end $:.lc '" oa«kr tax MItIL TAX STATEMENTS TO RETURN ADDRESS ABOVE _ N � 2 D (/I ch 09 0 -Z U 0 z r --n0 O r— .i7 0 _ = a) r m rn ohm �Cv v) T1 �0m T r m Z M Z ;13>m C C v=C) 0 0 zN A 0 v_ z z 0 z t- z n N 0 mKr— �D z W 0 80( � SCALE: 1"-40' SHEET 1 OF 4 SHEETS TRACT No. 27142 iN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BEING A MMMW41MM OF LOTB VA I%AID A PORTION OF LMS OF ?MGT =2910AO M EOI MAP 150111M M Do" off pAm 006 SO Of AIMS AMA PORTION OF LOT 'H" PARTITION OF THE HARM LOS PAWS VENDES, ALLOTTED TO JOTHAY AIXAY SV DECREE OF PARTITION IN ACTION NINNY ET AL VS. BENT ET AL, AS 3NOWK ON MAP PILED IN CASE N0. AS113 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE 171h JUOICIAL DISTRFCT OI' THE STATE OF CALIFORMI'I IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOB ANGELES, AND ENTEIKO IN *DOM 4 PA9E 67 OF JUOSMENU IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAID COUNTY, TOGLI EN OTTN A DEDICATNMI OF AN EASEMENT FOR AANITNIY SEWER PIMFOSES OVER A PORTION Of LOT 7, BLOCK 7 AMO OF. AN EASSALSNT FOIL STORM OMX PURPOSES OVER A PORTION OF LOT 4, BLACK T, BOTH Of TRACT 90. 9302 AS PER MAP RECOFIDED IN DOM 127 PAGES -33-55 INCLUSIVE Of MAPS. E. L PEARSON AND ASSOCIATES RA315 OF BEARINGS THE BEARING N 39' 04' 19" W OF THE CENTERLINE OF KNOLL VIEW DRIVE, SHOWN AS N 39' 00' 09°W ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO 25600 MAP BOON 667/89-90 WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. V1a hereby carJiJ3f that ora era !ne p•: Wars e£. d`art rnler'ealedrn the /arms lric/udeC within !ho su6dia'isrpn shown on Jhrs map. end ora consent AP the preµgrahon and rocordat,pn ef'sa+d rnap ono subdrvrsron as shown wilhin the colarep border tinea and ora JWrebyer eeafcate !p the,oub/rc u$a at/st cels f:gh.«wyr D "trier pu6hc •ways Shawn on ssid , ,-,, and LF/so stmt fo l/+r County pf to¢ an6e/es,tna eeaem&nt9 for son/Lary s&werand arorm drain IN, poser sa et siprs7fod on seidmap Dnd-if uxas Incidrrii fhere/p,inchro'/ng -therrght to "he cone Hi on i sFro"Ph fiwn enN,vr(wmng prrrh2mWe furlhdr cartir /h, a+icept AS "thrown oe, 0 copy . furs msap on lde fn the afF7'ca orf/Nr�otrd�A4aed Cenm;ssiurxr, lrk know of np e¢ssnmantoraNue• fur& exit ny wiihrn /he rmrianfa hgxabb�� offered rer ded,'aafr•on td iho other public, than pab/ic�p asynasd WDler i oIvc, aewem, or a/a"" odra/nsf .hal we wilt gni no M`gIW w interasi within the baugdorras at dpid ,: +ernenls oi/ssI"d eo Lisapubb`c, alucept wherw Such riots or interest is arprecsty made subject /D the Said "xema+its. J.H.SAASTON CONST;ZUCTfON CO„ INC., r circ arm., •.,,,oris. -r, `�stddcr.: '-'•��csC ��'—�.�.•s-�-J� ':J ... ys• .•�..Ac..f�.+.,aa1_(awusKi H; nor ti, d,+rnnar^. ,+..iyoanc. Marian ... 3urw I ,w,� . SOUINiRN NATIONAL COMPANY c -Per+, (-ruetec. rndn•dpMdlrgirrcrorarr,)e�e�.tT•tolli psga 6!o, OfMF7c+.j RrtardL - ,r4- rVdaanl Sn .hry Crwrras O+io Arrear ;wslaa.w) :_omeru�. 3rrer •,al:fie; IowN¢R OASDENA VALLEY ESCNOM CORPORATION. ar.M '•rasrre wryr(e'oFda(hvaieayarase in CoA 1-4O2e page CH. 0,jarc's. 7'ltL� WSc/4An/GB AAIZFM17 COMP.7" P i'.7 a eera,ra'9n der derma er t wt rec dcd ix .••t 7-/yFT F; ce s+, o.•�r.c rRR k tee>a a..a .. q w e �q1.+a pA4f i}�Yi�rr•caa Crerrq(rrusfea,� �ic irsi� ss r�e�Y stela of nista.•+n_ on, .•ttIr+36i. .i Wt' J..QS 1v P1 b fore dfb Cv.,nly of:ec A..gc/ec}Ss+ «J/Sr/ is f�tA' •Y•irt _afory pub/Pe in and for se+d �• vis Y and Stla/e, p.?on,el7y appeprad, Jo nT bye Ihe. J.N;SARION CONr7MUCY10N Cm INC. pt 01.,corpnrrn, /hx arecuiId the .. fn ne/rvn 1, enp .mews re try'fp pd 1h.„erFans who exec led IhI +7ryM inxeruln ! an brrrolf of Thr corpareNo herein •ymad,endeclrrow. a>>K(apefr•aavperelton ec¢eu;ed fry sem+ „ JOHN O S?,:- • w °m- • ..... I ' "•,. to =ro:., •- .` Vie& o'fCoTFd.`w;: 0R this . _. pey .1`01A0001rr4 aa:arr e Ca,e,ty d Loa nngc,ea} sa' ❑ S irde--!,rte. -T o Nat Fl>b' 'n e w fist` q -d Co.nry a 3Tdie.pe.[�e•wv�, opaared R;ct.ern u B.•nrinarT and taprier+ C. BLtkA.n•I.iwoband a,w ,f end it n to n.0 to be Nor P_r na ,I-Ao Formes arc s.ibvcrbcd to the -.'In;,- d .'In;nand acana,pl4a9ea M rete IF -t they rrpraitad the barna. I- . It e.by c fay that I om o R&q ile•nd G;.;l @nq.neer yl 'A, Ss./q, f Gna!•,,- •. 'hot this mop comh Gnq of O -r tAreti rpt, -IN .ga•si,nh t F•.q .-l-, r,r nlefe iw"y mod, under my tan�rvh.nn .n if.r9•n.e.• .hs:u.;t u.r .+,•r. rnr. of Roeder and /oeoborr Slnwn rlercp. •.rr n.P+:a :.:rr br + r. r.r « . AYu+fy - ibor mpnrhe Iron. retarding dbfu of liril •torp; that rrd n. n.,• -r. h •r•.:� -ienf to krvW* the mrcoy to be reod.1, tdrocad cod Mot ti. +".fes, •• .;n •,nna, 1”" monumenff sho.n hereon as Sat by me .;ft be on rfa ;n Gevnl)• Enginker rilNn Iwenf)•fppr mtmlhi from ra••+dint' dolt •A• .•. A.yr- .__': /WJitoOf 9�n.w• Rrgkfrred C-1 Engineer N•- 9783 4"We of`cah,..m ass; On Jh sfiTAdoYY oft +•t�-1lGS Aefarr waE CevArofLwrRn9drr) �,5�,,,�(tr..S'tlee•xaP.l,.yoA'.hrry•rWb/ rhi lr Said Caun/y sr}o/ Srdic, per.r nn/J bbwr•d frRaSY $. hEawAi•c.. ___ A'newn +'e nee r+ er the C/tf P eJ%dFnr, and . sArrt Q�R4•i'y____. #*oris fe me le he Jhe l/Sf:t SerrerorJ• cJ Tr'r/a ?nswanee end Trus) C'aoor5 JAa corbar�h`a» Jh•J ere, -.W he w:JA;n 1rratreaivnrr oad tnerrn orf !+ 6 rhe / erret. who execu e.' Abe w,'J,frii tn+rrwnem. en b +h.JF of Me or/ aryl //aere:,i /hewed and aeXnrwle•died }e ora rhel ,x•ro/+ c+�l..• f.Yr Cxtt.rhd lha tewe car- Jr+t.t .tte..... rs .�J - -- S1slc oi.^.elif m;a On !h;f. i 'T pt' pt�:.s •� 'SGb, ppefom ;ne, Lou,dyor; osangcres 155' �Ia rt,y- ? Vpsrryry Putrlic in end 'or 'Rid •LVoun7p '-Ii :r fe .oe:•a ana!!y a rr z ye lNC P^k/!dr•,i`. i•d Anown!O'ne re by/hr 5ra<•E•fw+'t1pf �OUIN FRN`tiJjiftt>IIAi r!'GAi PANY I [ cerW"q •inn r+;e• a/a<ul-e Ihr w.'I, nbeb.,ar%1ai.d rtnlve Jnn+et.•a b+h�r+iurrrw,n wlro metaled l•-ia :[h+r+nairaaKd [pryarpf`on is sCu Cd Ft:�r'• !h &re+n N+nrd,9nu aeFnor+7^dpkN io -ne N•otduui c tines at rruslen AIRS a%w% a t..a -: r •'r S•uiv er Ga:, For, u. Or• •• I wq al�w.yy� 146• br•bre nr& CeuntyyfaiA+ytree}ss: LyoeNB Tf, aUeir I+ubllen, dYa• 5Crvoly e„n Soo e. /e, y'ersd ay sl;paared, J¢A Wf,GRp, E!KsyAG,Ano.n+• re +na int YYc.4 praarde. ane 01" INy-_ ji1RA bnersn •n me +w 1,, •ham 8ocrohraJf/ of AR SNA VALL /BCRDW CORPORA710N, the carp}oro ho+.Ihai yyYSCuffe ifw F_ insfrurt+pis{ and7naw» fa r!iC 'r lha Arradla n7.e erscs,/ea Irl& nllfdniMlty mane a, ysho/Fat iho carpo�ihnq fhCrrrn nimed.ond eCf•WwiadDse/a ma •!yl such Corporal on exsca d/hp atm. si hudr+. t,t •Aly a 'a•M L�eI'kt Il'lit}T,tNi{:i •• �s•II4 J�e�ti,r4 • u n Myr.«nr.V»wn erpinr.,,5'�T{j,:.q,,S _•}• ,,yea ;wra_A.4a„�-••_ N+le.lrr rignshrer dfAtOS VEROFS ppOPt AiJESa�n Ilr.pev.n oifd e/Rene+n Ps:os rn. Y rdoaC rMianeWla++ue cwnaroi:of4cndhFN'-I+/��rferr.Pwr+rCewl+r. r.t.r =.•x.rl.- inept P l'epl tilg.srrvsn,w,Fl+rr7lnF OPd draiMgk PurPeaas.by deod•ccrrdr4M bate IFIi ulr+ilieF . - '.�J''-'^�'•,FY, D•3Z.Mawgea3C.eM a+n.nr afkn tnnIF its take 7for rpvd a+w publie vested bl rosarxsf;avl in d�rd r.cerdrJ'rn brisk 23 Cpl cto Ynido d:cdeorded DOLORES DtVSLOPMENT CORPORATION, a carperand,, o.n&r vFan raac.nen/ f prnilosryr9 saNcr end claim drernp,,,— grsnl.d he need r-sani3,OtFNivl rawdrd se emsnt rerarew N. beth 2 ROSpaa 3i3 hp.;np baso X 'n :II•72?2Psge882,edl dvJ rerr/rJ.µy9.+fsa(+.].f/r.,t+n•rAt. 1l6q,+NefOVdF,+/R /i, here ba-.. lnbaoAO.283 Records. „ger,JnrbA p�!tp sof Secl+on7/387,Subiscl+an*a) of .he Subdvil;--M kei inasm"c:, sder inlp a/,e rifle a+•d said arp•wr raa er<ne� /� rt',,-„ �Aa••A � 7 �,,,,m�,y� Interval isavrh M t!cannotr+p-n requited FV Ihn awrd o-: Supwn s. 6•_ W. Wesie�• wig M•+am f°"iii A.:la $ 6k- - wr. , stale or Gol;forr:o 0nsN-vB.?6t' or/kr %14. ___ MCI-. baron r..r C�e.lyd Las jgl'.E: S.."r'i-w.a+#'ei... _.aHafa,• P.rkAe in and far seed Uta_I<y._ �tnlr yr LobTarni,r 1 On NttsG.�.r.+a of QyMbc!'_ria4, before me,� Los Anile es` Firbs ;n and ter Co,rnityy and $Tate parapnaU�pppeurd „W.. and .cafe end kr ,. to :o be the eounry a( sS .r�„rrE. ti.4._gAM.Y...,p eJotar+i. Said fo.miy o„d state. pallwna7l p�aredr Charles 0,1. tetter and [Alliarvrya (. Rimer, fwsbnrsd and rvn% and N!+J4A_a d.t�V`t`7..1�. W.1,t„lwob-W sant WMse Warnes are supunbd to the r+:tFn:+�n.xrwnent ane oaknw• cd Rr env 1ha1 1he)r esecvled the spmr. kis to me fa by the Pest.% .,hese ..+tees ane %,6_iizd tb the silhin ks*vment and acknpVrlcdged iv me Kiat f6ey asatutad the carne. ";. ��'- .."•: .-fie. �_//-'-r a-.• _ A' , / Mr ralnn;Adien Lcrplrrs •W -/SAX .y, i;..n _wa•� �'/lis/! u_�—.v.._� ,Ay ro•nrnmian eyprcc f.{T_•4s� • -T�.��n-wy. L. S. Q.PNOAit _ Sfste eFCslif ;el On th;a / d oIf ,qdi�v, , ha fore m County aPlef AnprNtf as' _ owal'i Pubfic ln'endfer ea+d Ceand Scala, pirsonatt ppcorsd, 1Cra.n.e-r,_,(.eval.....tno,vn io ms to bs lhs.-_... _...R•sirhnc, snd .i.e.r rreCs4 S opmA.,knean le mo fa apLONi3• tv sOlpdk_ Cf*_ AT IDN, 1Apcorposstion (MFaKI? the F1Hlrn in,H rnr. adknvwn ipmeAiAactis peraena who ewaledlAe wrlhin 1ppdrµ on be +slfef tie CarPr Non Mervin nmrlkd,arrJ dadgad tafJle thW au +¢ seine. L i e..wit rrfen erArres �:ay:4%_. > N � (7 C D O3v �rn(n �vx <"c �Or �v ==w rmm C om Dncv in 'n W n X SOmT (nim O=X Zrnz o 0 ;u > In CDC v=CA-u 0 0 0Zm 0, N v vim? Z Z r Z n(AO Dr � tD, Z Q SCALE: 1"-40' TRACT NJo.27142 IN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES E. L. PEARSON AND ASSOCIATES We hereby om tlfy rho+— aro fhe ownere of ow raw ml ted i, ,h. towJe i-d.ded Ahir III, subdrv;aion Sho»n ow ttis reap, and --meat to the prq,oao4en and remraofian of cord ,nop o -.d wh,iaean n. ober+. r;th'n the ..bred b.,J- Imes and»r h.rr17 dcdea4 fo lk pl _ w all 4".,% tn''hwyr ...It alf.rr pubF2 w.yc ehnwn «, uid m.p, a..d dw rirpA i. Ihr te�..fy of Lec Myrira, rhr eesern.wfc far,ar;lary serrer o.d dorm drain purperae sa d.. pe Ird as c.:d _p .we .11 i.ns "vtcidewt M,.Ntq im'Wd.,rj ,ha night !o mnlrc ca+rct:v,e Me.nwi41, n. any .die:.uny p,np.A,ia. Vk f ,Mreerfify d,.f,elcrp, shown on a copy d /hle mep on itlr W. tlw affrcr of ,hr Co,w. y Ro.d Cam rnceener, wr knew of na <esemeM er TAruelUty nialin'r:1h,h M,r eose,»ada h—by afrn,ed rbw dwf�c-olion b f¢rr f.Alc,eeur M,on p,b• Imty fe.rned watlm hhea, aura, ar vter,n gfe inc; ihM •le w:e rt f no r Pt er 'rrlares! ».+bn the Iwunderiee of ..i.4 eae.*nelda eff r - rd ,a tlw pabic,..crpl .1—or wd, right ar o trred is r pa.ry n+ede cobjrd ie the swd royemente. PALOS VERGES t{OMeS ASSOCIATION, a corpora#�on,awnerf d fhe eotcernen, canted by o..lor.tion or Rceeich'on,c rcwWed 'w book xnaO . n. x31, off—A R.—As. "bcg Lnow, Res.tin} t a1r . o H frr bbe , 5e mtnr;. stat. er C.uror,,;. 1'x 0'Z Are( awlf M69 drkra Cdy or Lay AnrIl J%S—'V*r&.e.r!%Ikri o -7 ,d and rar tv.+d cay.dy wne 4,da prrw,a4), ryp ...f d._�Mrl:.•_!_i±:!�...... --- ...a.rn mr fo be �'e]M4!. �- ewd � .;}.., f!be T : ,rtVj,+bA� _- tugwn M mr o be ifrr Gt.Y2i?^7' of PALOS VESMES KOMES ASSOCIAMON, the -p i_* *.s e.ra,rTe.I 5hc .,th'.. i,alw.neM o„d W.oYr. Io me to be M.. p.rsane rho e.rcJrd oh. wiihin :nslrumcr•T on brhatf of Mx corporat4a. Ihrl m nomrd, and oekl.aaltedgnd b me M,.* wch rarp.rehcn executed We q 1:2 one. _ :27 tvt/.1PLL.-- 1;1 eafgo— twt .Y e.ei•�M.lc�,_. gE!�� .� at ••,•c�n�tltla �..ir..1 .�. thrf,i raWleSn a.o 6lMl...eeK'aM. hM0 t.it�Tm m T+.i�.sc10i,iaTa`aewar/'zim�ce u� m� zei ivwi. !1611, IIItM' MIT T14 IpceaM Mtr. ru a10r1[Y Ir[ IWlO p 4VI6YQalf of l i,,.eNc T..fTY,:. Sr 011.1 KA.I M ,aM.teO� I keolll _" tut 1 l -`-1 Illi. _p. M -T h 0]I,tOrlle .e111111Itl1e! b lf» !~- nap and NI W..d allfrlllurte 6-1. Ila! Yl —:—al Kalb% Eau Ire ntt kc,1 .IIA anlda¢s ru.. t.rn canNMd w+th: lad 1N1 t wn a10111ed see ,ar +wr r rexn;r..lry wr.eL JOHN A. LA E 1pu SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS /1"_ - Z RECORDED Af CF OVAAA M e00R . .. ^�• AT Mc .. ..—. V ar` ae.allta >r tFH CFUr , l herehy !ey ,het I a Qe _.k-df"C.;I Ennea wr of the S1vte e( CaNfernq: ShM1IdifMie a,ap omCar.S•eha.s of fa4c..31vr1A —0t, reprea.ni5 e irde and *-4de;r —IVCy -d, Under,elt 5vp.,v;5; n .n Usr,!!Iher, thal N,r non—to. of choraclrr rr.d lyeefian yearn hcrcon ore;. {tape w.d tw ;. Vet'..r:th:.,11t9R1y_'C?ut. .mewtha from rceo•d iy date of Ih;a map; c..t eod ..wnu.ntlnls +re w(fK%enS ro rn WIt the am y ,a be keadity retraced A Mmt e:. n0.% ro ae re.earai,e rm.vmMe shown .rcen as eet f7 mr 'u W an i�4 :n she .filer .r Ihr S4_url ,Iy. »;w.t.,MiC!T..£:i:.....a.th,: f:a.., remre.,y ddr 0— ltrnlm, Re9i►Fered Ciu,I Cn9e,eer N9 MQ3 W., 'the eynnhav of field. et a,nerrea 1JafeKwt Iry si and 5or»,gs Assoaahu-, o ea1`:onol beak;,.' aeyocialW.,, ovw.ars or on lnlertrel in {ha aas+,,,rnl crreted by Q.d. fie- er b-* MC% paSe ?a" OfAcwl o,i,.e been ".i.tled under +hc prwistens of 6eah:en bard e„„bar.tien let of she Subdk4 -e n +rap Rcl r.wcmuch as eet is we, tha! :t tanaet lyra ..fa r I111e and suet. ely,alue io not r.y,nrcd by the 13oard of Supermsors. Nota: The signaturrr o/ "Ar own01 W tSe rr na /Aare; CJt tri. CgJe.lrnt �Jarved A drrd 111.11flIF bed( 2SG ae �..�r 3r3, df4-c; l Ret.re., Leer been nn.r/yed Gar• /-A, f rover' a{ Svetnin !/syd, .Yw.isxti.. m'A Aet ir,ef wr. t ,hpr.<tr-ee/ Fe deter.n,Ar the prrJewl ernrrsb:,b Ihrrrri' A-7 Va -4 x cn 09 03-0 Emco �vx { O C * m r O = x "I r.mm o0N nnm TI o m uiom = ;a zmz � v > m C C v =-0 O 0zm p ; Z z0 � n N Z O Jnr {D 03 z 0 SCALE 1" = 40• SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS YRACY N 27142 `R4` ".f O• Cd+yJ!ut/ !l CJIb@/�iA11' RECORD�EDpp704/2] AT r�kS IN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF \ THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES \� ''m "'too E. L. PEARSON AND ASSOCIATES s- t>w'•� YY\� r RAY �r`n'tj 5. •e; � C 10 Ratsfr. r r/ sn d w , i y x' � �/ o� 4: \ rscao �'Teec�sJ•!o3'•""',••�.r� p«.r ... w ♦ yf', a.dJ DETAIL � M Na Sca Ic �r jrra., i 2'f.P. xr 73nrY •�Fe. a+r_ —1 0216 66 Fd 2 P 5C f ` ND 2Li:5 'MB+M.O. CS >".- r. +,7 T'estM7Yi d0 �/ � ;�•• �� I. M3 667. d9•f0 n .o`.'� -s- "�_!��`•t ..•i Fd. s.1 r. r. u, cacao ({ a � � ..{7}xU Noe` d _ •_.. ...c. '..-:. '. ti• .` '•.. ..� 7 Z ( z5W89 .nu- u 'Y''a1 •Se! 2'. .• "' - 1 r +`Il �•SeI 2"iR i� ::T:�I�IL• :� il/ r. 'rJ'f+i. .T ._ � •li bNd9•Ss••/S'G •+•f=&s.: `.-line lois �rYseaa, �:•:•.,1 y:.: -t Z�1 ..S+a- 1 Z' r�a,•1f� � 5 yL�: of .ld ff'la L � y � � { sir r �s „ .., p.frd• i rn Z•,. 1 r • ,.k. S /bas. t 'o T -•i \ . - ( • T.:II S' .•. �'�.IA4c• • EE DETAIL 4 � o° c -� �.�. se.r.- }'.,.; a � � .:cu �,.a•>y�: a.«� .d 1 j f�� ^�'�'w<✓i V) 20 • •• '21 E,•a ' f`` J.w: `yd ATr++� 1 "I -J• .Jp"� +Nr� e A ty O $:w 1 h.+..N rT,Gn: w'.s `• 4�: • I '.` •off._— � a+M Y'• L'. 5 !../f•. J.�cr r (,jrj�,,,f !I r• z"� O I a��iva ._ _�.: _ o. - + , af'iLy.w •'l�t Ac �'}«r•:..4�- e i � +� • ~\• �.�-g .�c�iN.a I ' 1'7 Q :�, G'�` lda�.�.ISTN ?.� ,•� 4 �l� �1 '. fMM b•� v ♦ '1 2 ; r ?'y 4t ,a :J� � • I 0y + f IJI '. +ie-; • ��`f. a?"r$-as `r r F r-�` �i �� roe •s�'ss'a .t -r -x• +1 _ w�^s�':c•ro,oa < � _ •t* a.��...5is:ir:zs en}9 •frreT• _, .� 1• � r r ,ra 6e>: af•M 4i� ? �� >^2 a sae- ..ai � a •k .. r. e 4 a �� L,� X24 N 8i'SS `c f d •-ti�V . r N 2 � J i , a 19 , �eG� g ^ , t a {( o 5 e a I1 � ' -(of cos M efe> M. se•• •o!. '+ lui N iI� A -a/. �� a I/ (scwrpoeee b• '\ N� O Enfcmy 1 bS++4 •� •�+i�NO. N'� •+'rM.s /,%— I'C' �`�i ty0 �•'� '` o` k.. lel •;��•{/sr Sfe+-m Drnln WI�PPtes r•g r &roSb .Vrardn wr r� sa pn J.P, p,T 2�-JK' �• • �i � Lr! ` r zA Y _W �o� N=' �� Y+ ♦ �'' 5 `Yr411c eafe.,•e r , dih aN1 Gw,/r .f _u Apia Fe. Nae .Z . _ o^' a I 3 '�5 ltd 21 (ITG . �/ 2"..P :r.• 1 f7h.c! Nr r$rd ` i °•� 1 1$ti"'• On:n P. p•J.•> W v�oo; � - 1 � 1 t'�� i+.'B acj/(D_x � � �.h 4 O NOS'77.07`W aA.Y.9i•16 17 r: 4 3 � y R fc lieu•.+ent ro�r+�w P r ila.a! c ^I. � 4 w 4 !+ a Sem Farpu.e>.� sr zw.of' tly, �� ...', ♦..•ss'u• ,• av ID•r/' JJ - C :{L•ro.OT' o C R,d 7•' i ITe� • as`� c+caro : k �r a� atl „ tg i � i "q � gS � �-�•.a`E nano 8 «��a �` +� �'jrFF.oJ.. 2.2\eee,r. Tcd ac /e( Ocfc!/eflnler,Terriiye 1 1. ! 17• •,r :., wy fW& 0.fe[x xj;jnsf �E ro•Sen•w,; � Sr.+•�� pracad W�a+ Z"I.P. 3 p. Ess, Er Sep SNE No Sco% Noie : All 2'LP s Se! R' D—p A-8 > IA U) $ 03-0 9mcn vvx r- -n 0 m v = 2 D7 rmM CY 0 m > v -n C3 (7 5°-n cn —i m 0 = .Z1 Zmz ; u>m C D C cn v= O0 z m o �> M z n z r z n N O NDr � D z 07 4 Mal -OPAM.L-LL SCALE 1" -40' SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS TRACT N o. 27142 .lraf�r�.y IN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESRi�!ECCfORDED Ora Yr - E. L. PEARSON AND ASSOCIATES a. w W AlKMM CNIMY. CAW,RA . OWNt - 5EE SyEF T 2 Nae•ee'rYw _A3d. �'. '�. 59 1 - Nbp• � ��_ � C 3 � A.r•Srss• \� Yt• ro.ra• •1 C � a. -r ': r' M89"5S R5'E I is s.}.- �� : 0 L � bO* M' <+S 6 ;� n Q' a •p 7 � e! _ 6 "? ).o.,,wdoluroN1(• � lgd.�e' _ Q IJ'T♦,� ci 14 +vd9'ss, AS' Z 114.97' 97rN V+ •� � � N 9. o Isftl� �n - " ls64' N ♦3.0� ea, 'hto� "f+-' io.aL 71 I law Cann of ". "j x aye{ f y 5 .WyNe. far sw. ron. $ 3 �S�.wr n—s r`, �g�• o _v g��t_ ,�. • Y Y .� W_ � ..� `Ne�,9 55 G /2700' J > -a I I LZtn' i Cq H BO • f4'45'f 1: Ja W'!y/i,.e O.A.D I6 ae/asr 12 � v �, ri+i- •� 7 ReP/ec.d wdh oo $41 h /� tL 169t4• to, O4' fdr.4'r f? Ne Y"�, ueeepred �� r z F 1j,L CAl(op ,�c ACA /op MS 4hC3, Fd z-/P.errzz «�nmd s.t 2-r.P. _ o es NW C.rer.l.r /Ji LOLA.M�t. SJ s Nbr— A!/ Z`[Pk Ser 12 - Ck-,7 A-9 Leaa Mikhail From: Joel Rojas Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:56 AM To: Leza Mikhail Subject: FW: P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35; Case No. ZON2011-00280 Attachments: Title Policy.pdf; Document Number 3046.pdf FYI. I'm sure carol will be contacting us about this at some point. From: Jana Gordon [mailto:jana@standenislaw.comj Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:41 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: stan@standenislaw.com; terri@standenislaw.com; Joel Rojas Subject: P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35; Case No. ZON2011-00280 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING IS AN EMAIL COMMUNICATION FROM MR. DENIS, PERSONALLY Also, when communicating with this office via email please include all of the following addresses on any communications to ensure the promptest attention and reply: stan@standenislaw.com, terri@standenislaw.com lana@standenislaw.com. LAW OFFICES OF STANLEY DENIS TELEPHONE 3620 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (310) 378-4900 SUITE 200 TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 February 26, 2015 Via Email Only clynch@rwglaw.com Carol Lynch Richards Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 401h Floor Los Angeles, California 900071 Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Case No. ZON2011-00280 Lot 7 of Tract 27142 (APN 756-006-018) Property Owner: Mr. Amir Esfahani Dear Ms. Lynch: I am sorry it has taken me a week or so to get to this. FACSIMILE (310)378-4911 Per our phone conversation, I am enclosing a copy of the title policy issued by Investors Title Company back in 1987 when my client took title to Lot 6. i A-10 You will note under paragraph number 3 on page 2 that title consisted of two parcels: Parcel 1 was Lot 6 itself (except for a small portion unrelated to our matter) and Parcel 2 was an easement over the southerly 10 feet of Lot 5 which comprises half of the common driveway shared between my client's property and the property to the north, Lot 5. You will note that under the Schedule B exceptions, there are a number of easements, but none regarding ingress and egress in favor of Lot 7. You will note that exception number 9 identifies an easement for ingress and egress "as granted to Joseph H. Barton...by Deed recorded November 21, 1953 as Instrument Number 3046..." Our title company has obtained a copy of that document which I am also enclosing herein. I apologize if the document is difficult to read or illegible. (it is the best we can do). Unfortunately, you will note that document 3046 is in fact recorded on November 20, 1953 and relates to matters and parties unrelated to and distinctly different from that reflected in the title policy. Because we know that Lots 5 and 6 gave to each other a 10 foot easement over the other's property in order to create the common driveway and because exception number 9 in the title policy has the identical language to my client's 10 foot easement over Lot 5, it is clear that the exception number 9 is the reciprocal easement on my client's property in favor of Lot 5. Note that the wording for these two easements (the one in favor of Lot 6 and the one against Lot 6) are identical, i.e. "an easement for ingress and egress ... lying Westerly of the Northerly prolongation of the Easterly line of Lot 7 of said Tract 27142". In other words, the reference to Lot 7 in both of these descriptions is merely using the easterly boundary line of Lot 7 as a point of reference, i.e. the "Northerly prolongation of the Easterly Line of Lot 7"...and is clearly not reflecting or identifying an easement in favor of Lot 7. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, LAW OFFICES OF STANLEY DENIS /s/ Stanley Denis SD/jg Enclosures Cc: Joel Rojas via email ioelrrpv.com Email Lynch 15.0226 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and in some cases, information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work -product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. A-11 If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by e-mail will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the full extent of the law. Please be advised, however, that the Law Offices of Stanley Denis and its lawyers do not represent you until you have signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other deadlines for your case or potential case. A-12 F-- 7'El INVESTORS TITLE COMPANY RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY One -To -Four Family Residences OWNER'S INFORMATION SHEET Your Title Insurance Policy is a legal contract between you and the Company. It applies to a one -to -four family residential lot or condominium unit. If your land is not either of these, contact us immediately. The Policy insures you against certain risks to your land title. These risks are Listed on page oneof the Policy. The Policy is limited by: • Exclusions on page 2 • Exceptions In Schedule 8 • Conditions on pages 2 and 3 You should keep the Policy even If you transfer the title to your land. If you want to make a claim. see Item 3 under Conditions on page 2. You do not owe any more premiums for the Policy. This sheet is not your insurance Policy. It is only a brief outline of some of the important Policy features. The Policy explains in detail your rights and obligations and our rights and obligations. Since the Policy— and not this sheet — is the legal document. YOU SHOULD READ THE POLICY VERY CAREFULLY. If you have any questions about your Policy, contact: Dcl-� IN1i/,E S�TI�ITLCOMPANY 3055 Wilshire Boulevard • Los Angeles, California 90010-1108 • (213) 380-1080 0 (800) 252-9106 800 West Doran Street • Glendale, California 91203-1519 • (818) 507-1371 Z'd 6bL0-LLE (OL£) L dti,43£ oeo SCHEDULE A Total Fee for Title Search, Examination and Title Insurance $1,408.00 Policy lsn:ount: $459,000.00 Policy No.: 163305-06 Policy Date: November 1.0, 1987 @ 4:21 P.M. The Policy amount will automatically increase by 102" of the amount shown above on each of the first five anniversaries of the Policy Date. 1. game of Insured: S & K Industries, a. Nevada Corporation 2. Your interest in the lard covered by chis policy is: A Fee, as to Parcel (s): '.. An Basement, as to Parcel. (s): 2 3. The land referred to in this Policy is described as follows: PARCEL 1: Lot 6 of Tract No. 27142, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 740 Pages 22 to 25 inclusive of :gaps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. Except therefrom that portion of said Lot 6 described as follows: Beginning at the 'Northeasterly corner of said 'Lot 6; thence along the Northerly line of said Lot, South 89° 55' 45" 'Nest 5.41, feet; thence South 6° 33' 00" East 47.31 feet to the Easterly line of. said Lot; thence along said Easterly line North 00 04' 15" West 47.00 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 2: An for easement ingress, egress and underground utilities oveilthat portion of the Southerly 10.00 feet of lot 5 of Tract 27142, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, as per map recorded in Hook 740 Pages. ive of Maps, n the Office of the County Recorder of 22 to 25 inclusive :i said Countin i erl y of the i�orthe �� r oaog�ti or. of l� `Y Easterly- line of Lot 7 of said Tract 27L42. p L'd 6tL0-LL£ (020 L deA&14c oeo SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS In addition to the Exclusions, you are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Second installment general and special county and/or city taxes for the Fiscal Year: 1987-1988. Amount: $606.65 Open. Code No.: 07097. Parcel No.: 7566-006-017. 1A. The Lien of Supplemental Taxes assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation code. 2. Covenants, conditions and restrictions (deleting therefrom any restrictions based on race, color, or creed), as provided in a document Recorded: June 8, 1965 in Book M1884 Page 89, Official Records. Said covenants, conditions and restrictions provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat nor render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value. 3. The terms and conditions of an unrecorded agreement between Tingle & Person, Inc., a corporation, and the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, relating to the furnishing of telephone service to said land by underground means, as disclosed by a Notice of Agreement between said parties, recorded February 27, 1962 in Book M959 Page 165, Official Records. 4. The effect of an instrument recorded March 16, 1965 as instrument No. 3979 in Book 82203 Page 575, Official Records, executed by J. R. Barton Construction Co., Inc., reciting as follows: "I hereby certify that I am the owner of the property adjacent to the East end of Knollview Drive in proposed Tract No. 27625. I hereby agree to accept and take care of the drainage water being discharged from the publicly dedicated streets of the above mentioned tract and consent to the necessary grading thereto, understanding that this may necessitate the construction and maintenance of a small drainage ditch to take care of said waters. 6'd 6bL0-LL£ (OLO dgAO ly 0e4 5. M 7. 8. I do further agree to hold the County of Los Angeles free and clear of any damages arising from said drainage and will permit the County to enter the premises to do such maintenance work as may be required at any time. It is my understanding that all expenses in connection herewith shall be borne by the subdivider of said tract." Covenants, conditions and restrictions (deleting therefrom any restrictions based on race, color, or creed), as provided in a document Recorded: February 14, 1957 in Book 56066 Page 275, Official Records. Said covenants, conditions and restrictions provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat nor render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value. Said covenants, conditions and restrictions here modified by a document, Recorded: June 15, 1976 as Instrument No. 1266, Official Records. Aa easement for purposes herein stated, and rights incidental thereto as provided in a document For: poles and conduits. Affects: the Northerly 10 feet of the Westerly 163 feet of said land. Recorded: August 26, 1965 in Book D2999 Page 736, Official Records. An easement for purposes herein stated, and rights incidental thereto, as shown on or dedicated by the map Of: Tract 27142. For: Sanitary sewers. Affects: a 6 foot strip of said land. An easement for purposes herein stated, and rights incidental thereto as provided in a document For: conduits. Affects: the Northerly 5 feet of the Westerly 162 feet of said land. Recorded: June 16, 1966 in Book D3338 Page 129, Official Records. Z -d 61VLO-LL£ (06£) 6 d9AQ 1600 oaa 9. An easement for ingress and egress over that portion of said land, lying,. Westerly of the Northerly prolon&aation of the Easterly line of Lot 7 of said Tract No. 27142, as granted to Joaep .i1,-urtou; a married man, by deed recorded November 21,. 1953 as Instrument No. 3046, Official Records. 10. An easement for purposes herein stated, and rights incidental thereto as provided in a document For: underground/overhead cable television facilities. Affects: that portion of said land as shown on Exhibit "A" attached thereto. Recorded: October 17, 1986 as instrument No. 86-1402225, Official Records. 11. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the original principal sum of $321,300.00. Trustor: S & K Industries, a Nevada Corporation. Trustee: Serrano Reconveyance Company, a California Corporation. Beneficiary: Home Savings of ilmerica, F.A., a Corporation. Dated: November 3, 1987. Recorded: November 10, 1987 as Instrument No. 87-1803314. £'d 6VL0-LLC (06£) L dgAQ.+-P£ o80 ,040 7 t dR1Vr QST 14 ,oaz TCT_NO.-Qbs 40.0. oe-r9-22 1-77 7a�T NO a.� —0 D �7-9J-js TAACT Y e 6E7-b9�p i -AC A. uAR #40 %, A 4 F-1 coo -11• F-7� INVES0M �Cp4fPANY THIS IS NEITHER A PIAT NOR A SURVEY. IT IS FURNISHED ASA CONVENIENCE TO LOCATE THE LAND INDICATED THEREON WITH REFERENCE TO STREETS AND OTHER LAND_ NO UABiLrrY IS ASSUMED BY REASON OF RELIANCE HEREON. ITC 056 V'd 6VL( -LLE (06E) L d9A0 jimS oeQ • � t I �I r '"° l� P1f17,ll � pd IRA f4.1R _.1C311Y [#k=Ih'',,P&r1U 3if.1 { . I 1 30 AW V f Vt{ . 3b . io Ad4� i 3b�DJ dke i7Citl olfo v Si alloY.tlr I: l � � uV,�,E�lie3� 5611• Ii�IHM Oi iN3WTi313fl 3#i1 . _ I • � t I. 1 16 64 rk UL -.R y1x QED AN a.m ' a ■ O 'w p!v .�+ v r1 � Enc„ H 4AA1xMrbBGtRN d:A" 4 7; t a d ..,no C1 f i,� +[ .ai '!IS r d M ■ i7 d Q rf O 41 A �. r� vn � :4v � ..e � ■ +C1^ �,1 1.� ppF� ri? U O ct G i Wydo 4� of O 'P I a dim"o—i ckoft'940 e4 cc y T 10-114 —.44 1];.0. R wi 4 . TSS p a " pr� cs M o 012t� li spa si 2, 6 ^!e�-1 S IRt" .fiqq� 13 � i6 ■ � C7 1M �, ,F7 r'+�! .. + lY. .3 ,q 4 R q o ova 1-0111 0 - rb44 CP a 0: 0 ^O i0 1 +� M ' iiCsNR�1qC4w� ■ Lw Mi:'►a:1m 91 93.9 6, 4 %4 o 4 O 2O rl A w A O1aGi Li0.0.0a *2 low 41�q00 03410 0,1.0 rcCiaa-= R *s9� w q .ea .0, .6 i O d 19 !a 42 We, .,.t p 39,0'Ci b � i. rM R :.00 .f p ' 'R�,Y1 i A y rl R R as � � f. M r1 ♦ . E ay w ■ * MID no1 % . i�r►g3 rmagb 0 w- Applicant's Title Report A-20 1/13/15 Mr. Joel Rojas Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Vacant Land on Knoll View Drive, Lot 7, Tract 27142 Dear Mr. Rojas, RECEIVED JAN l.4 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT As the property owner, we believe that the appellants attempt to raise the issue of drainage does not apply to the Planning Commission approval that is the subject of this appeal. As you know, approval of drainage is an issue for the Building and Safety department. Drainage and hydrology plans prepared by professional engineers will be submitted to the Building and Safety department for approval at the appropriate time. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Iir rely �Esfahani A-21 M Lawyers Tifle Peninsula Escrow 57 Malaga Cove Plaza Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Attn: Lorena Avila Your Reference No: Lawyers Title Company 7530 N. Glenoaks Blvd. Burbank, CA 91504 Phone: (818) 767-2000 Fax: (818) 504-4937 Title Officer: Ralph J. Mason, Jr. --So email: tu08@ltic.com Phone No.: (818) 252-6040 Fax No.: (818) 252-3732 File No.: 115080030 HERMOSA SEASIDE DEVELOPMENT CORP Property Address: Vacant Land, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California PRELIMINARY REPORT Dated as of December 17, 2014 at 7:30 a.m. In response to the application for a policy of title insurance referenced herein, Lawyers Title Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance describing the land and the estate or Interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception herein or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations or Conditions of said policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set forth in Attachment One. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitation on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Attachment One. Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. The policy(s) of title insurance to be issued hereunder will be policy(s) of Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Attachment One of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested. CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 1 A-22 File No: 115080030 SCHEDULE A The form of policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is: CLIA Standard Owners The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is: A FEE as to Parcel(s) 1. An EASEMENT more fully described below as to Parcel(s) 2. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: Hermosa Seaside Development Corporation, a California Corporation The land referred to herein is situated in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 2 A-23 File No: 115080030 EXHIBIT "A" THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: LOT 7 OF TRACT NO. 27142, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 740, PAGES 22 TO 25, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 2: A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THOSE PORTIONS OF LOT 6 AND OF THE SOUTHERLY 10.00 FEET OF LOT 5 OF TRACT NO. 27142, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 740, PAGES 22 TO 25, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 7 OF SAID TRACT NO. 27142. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 7566-006-018 CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 3 A-24 File No: 115080030 SCHEDULE B - Section A The following exceptions will appear in policies when providing standard coverage as outlined below: 1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records. CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 4 A-25 A. B. File No: 115080030 SCHEDULE B - Section B At the date hereof Exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions in said policy form would be as follows: Property taxes, which are a lien not yet due and payable, including any assessments collected with taxes to be levied for the fiscal year 2015-2016. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, are as follows: Tax Identification No.: 7566-006-018 Fiscal Year: 2014-2015 1st Installment: $3,463.01, Paid 2nd installment: $3,463.01, Open (Delinquent after April 10) Penalty and Cost: $356.30 Homeowners Exemption: None Shown Code Area: 07097 Prior to close of escrow, please contact the Tax Collector's Office to confirm all amounts owing, including current fiscal year taxes, supplemental taxes, escaped assessments and any delinquencies. C. The lien of supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, made pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) or Part 2, Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4, respectively, of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result of the transfer of title to the vestee named in Schedule A or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction occurring prior to Date of Policy. 1. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not disclosed by the Public Records. 2. Any easements not disclosed by the public records as to matters affecting title to real property, whether or not said easements are visible and apparent. 3. Matters contained in that certain document Entitled: Unrecorded Agreement Executed by: Tingle and Pearson Inc., a Corporation and the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company Recording Date: February 27, 1962 Recording No.: Book M-959, Page 165, of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars 4. Matters contained in that certain document Entitled: Agreement Executed by: 3. H. Barton Construction Co., Inc. Recording Date: March 16, 1965 Recording No.: Book R-2203, Page 575, of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 5 A-26 File No: 115080030 5. Covenants, conditions and restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, source of income, gender, gender identity, gender expression, medical condition or genetic information, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the document Recording Date: June 8, 1964 Recording No: Book M-1884, Page 89, of Official Records Said covenants, conditions and restrictions provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value. 6. Covenants, conditions and restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, source of income, gender, gender identity, gender expression, medical condition or genetic information, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the document Recording Date: November 14, 1957 Recording No: Book 56066, page 275, of Official Records Said covenants, conditions and restrictions provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value. 7, A lien for unsecured property taxes filed by the tax collector of the county shown, for the amount set forth, and any other amounts due. County: Los Angeles Fiscal Year: 2007-2008 Taxpayer: Hermosa Seaside Development Corp. Certificate No.: 08256-00348 Amount: $2,492.13 Recording Date: September 12, 2008 Recording No.: 200816486/3, of Official Records 8. A lien for unsecured property taxes filed by the tax collector of the county shown, for the amount set forth, and any other amounts due. County: Los Angeles Fiscal Year: 2007-2008 Taxpayer: Hermosa Seaside Development Corp. Certificate No.: 08256-00349 Amount: $1,492.65 Recording Date: September 12, 2008 Recording No.: 20081.648674 of Official Records CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 6 A-27 File No: 115080030 9. A lien for unsecured property taxes filed by the tax collector of the county shown, for the amount set forth, and any other amounts due. County: Los Angeles Fiscal Year: 2009-2010 Taxpayer: Hermosa Seaside Development Inc. Certificate No.: 10096-00422 Amount: $9,562.26 Recording Date: April 7, 2010 Recording No.: 201.00469384, of Official Records 10. A lien for unsecured property taxes filed by the tax collector of the county shown, for the amount set forth, and any other amounts due. County: Los Angeles Fiscal Year: 2009-2010 Taxpayer: Hermosa Seaside Development Inc. Certificate No.: 10096-00423 Amount: $91.41 Recording Date: April 7, 2010 Recording No.: 20100469385. of Official Records 11. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other obligations secured thereby Amount: $2,200,000.00 Dated: September 24, 2010 Trustor/Grantor: Hermosa Seaside Development Corporation, a California Corporation Trustee: Marshall Esfahani Beneficiary: Marshall Esfahani Loan No.: Not Set Out Recording Date: October 22, 2010 Recording No: ?Q1,Q151-101 2. of Official Records This Company will require that the original note, the original deed of trust and a properly executed request for full reconveyance together with appropriate documentation (i.e., copy of trust, partnership agreement or corporate resolution) be in this office prior to the close of this transaction if the above-mentioned item is to be paid through this transaction or deleted from a policy of title insurance. Any demands submitted to us for payoff must be signed by all beneficiaries as shown on said deed of trust, and/or any assignments thereto. In the event said demand is submitted by an agent of the beneficiary(s), we will require the written approval of the demand by the beneficiary(s). Servicing agreements do not constitute approval for the purposes of this requirement. If no amounts remain due under the obligation a zero balance demand will be required along with the reconveyance documents. In addition, we require the written approval of said demand by the trustor(s) on said deed of trust or the current owners if applicable. CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 7 1 • • File No: 115080030 12. Any rights of the parties in possession of a portion of, or all of, said Land, which rights are not disclosed by the Public Records. The Company will require, for review, a full and complete copy of any unrecorded agreement, contract, license and/or lease, together with all supplements, assignments and amendments thereto, before issuing any policy of title insurance without excepting this item from coverage. The Company reserves the right to except additional items and/or make additional requirements after reviewing said documents. END OF SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS PLEASE REFER TO THE "NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS SECTION" WHICH FOLLOWS FOR INFORMATION NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THIS TRANSACTION CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 8 A-29 Req. No. 1: Req. No. 2 File No: 115080030 REQUIREMENTS SECTION: In order to complete this report, the Company requires a Statement of Information to be completed by the following party(s), Party(s) All Parties The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested Statement of Information, NOTE: The Statement of Information is necessary to complete the search and examination of title under this order, Any title search includes matters that are indexed by name only, and having a completed Statement of Information assists the Company in the elimination of certain matters which appear to involve the parties but in fact affect another party with the same or similar name. Be assured that the Statement of Information is essential and will be kept strictly confidential to this file. The Company will require the following documents for review prior to the issuance of any title insurance predicated upon a conveyance or encumbrance by the corporation named below: Name of Corporation: Hermosa Seaside Development Corporation, a California Corporation a) A Copy of the corporation By-laws and Articles of Incorporation b) An original or certified copy of a resolution authorizing the transaction contemplated herein c) If the Articles and/or By-laws require approval by a 'parent" organization, a copy of the Articles and By-laws of the parent The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested documentation. CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 9 A-30 File No: 115080030 INFORMATIONAL NOTES SECTION Note No. 1: The information on the attached plat is provided for your convenience as a guide to the general location of the subject property. The accuracy of this plat is not guaranteed, nor is it a part of any policy, report or guarantee to which it may be attached. Note No. 2: California insurance code section 12413.1 regulates the disbursement of escrow and sub -escrow funds by title companies. The law requires that funds be deposited in the title company escrow account and available for withdrawal prior to disbursement. Funds deposited with the company by wire transfer may be disbursed upon receipt. Funds deposited with the company via cashier's check or teller's check drawn on a California based bank may be disbursed on the next business day after the day of deposit. If funds are deposited with the company by other methods, recording and/or disbursement may be delayed. All escrow and sub -escrow funds received by the company will be deposited with other escrow funds in one or more non-interest bearing escrow accounts of the company in a financial institution selected by the company. The company may receive certain direct or indirect benefits from the financial institution by reason of the deposit of such funds or the maintenance of such accounts with such financial institution, and the company shall have no obligation to account to the depositing party in any manner for the value of, or to pay to such party, any benefit received by the company. Those benefits may include, without limitation, credits allowed by such financial institution on loans to the company or its parent company and earnings on investments made with the proceeds of such loans, accounting, reporting and other services and products of such financial institution. Such benefits shall be deemed additional compensation of the company for its services in connection with the escrow or sub -escrow. For wiring Instructions please contact your Title Officer or Title Company Escrow officer. Note No. 3: Lawyers Title is a division of Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company. The insurer in policies of title insurance, when issued in this transaction, will be Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company. Note No. 4: There are no conveyances affecting said land recorded within 24 months of the date of this report. Note No. 5: The Company requires current beneficiary demands prior to closing. If the demand is expired and a current demand cannot be obtained, our requirements will be as follows: a) If the Company accepts a verbal update on the demand, we may hold an amount equal to one monthly mortgage payment. This hold will be in addition to the verbal hold the lender may have stipulated. b) If the Company cannot obtain a verbal update on the demand, we will either pay off the expired demand or wait for the amended demand, at our discretion. C) All payoff figures are verified at closing. If the customer's last payment was made within 15 days of closing, our Payoff Department may hold one month's payment to insure the check has cleared the bank (unless a copy of the cancelled check is provided, in which case there will be no hold). Processor: AA Date Typed: January 8, 2015 CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 10 A-31 File No; 115080030 Attachment One (Revised 06-05-14) CALIFORNIA LAND TiTLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY — 1990 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE 'file following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting Qte land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Dale or Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure orany subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate of interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws. EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE—SCHEDULE B, PART 1 This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fe�-s or expenses) which arise by reason of: I . Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records. 6. Any lien or right to a lien for set -vices, labor or material not shown by the public records. Attachment One (6-5-14) © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association - A -32 File No: 115080030 CLTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (12-02-13) ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule E, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: I . Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning: a_ building; b. zoning; C. land use; d. improvements on the Land; e, land division; and f. environmental protection. 'this Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27. 2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15. 3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17. 4. Risks: a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the Policy Date; C. that result in no loss to You; or d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28. 5. Failure to pay value for Your Title. 6. Lack of a right: a, to any land outside the arca specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b, in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk I l or 21. 7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws. 8. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence. 9. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances. LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner's Coverage Statement as follows: • For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19, and 21 Your Dcductiblc Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows: (7ur tv1u� Y�?tim Duly Your Deductible Amount Limit of L.iahility 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 Covered Risk 16: (whichever is less) $10,000.00 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 Covered Risk 18: (whichever is less) $25,000.00 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 Covered Risk 19: (whichever is less) $25,000.00 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 Covered Risk 21: (whichever is less) $5,000.00 Attachment One (6-5-14 © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. A-33 File No: 115080030 2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: I . (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) Elie occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion I(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion I (b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2, Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or R. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Dale of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13 or 14); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing -business laws of the state where the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth -in -lending law. 6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' tights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy. 7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the dale of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk I I(b), 'The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE Except as provided in Schedule 8 - Part 11, this policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses, that arise by reason of: PART The above policy flmi may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage: I, (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority That levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records ol'such agency or by the Public Records, 2. Any facts, u ights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the 'title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 6, Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the public Records. PART 11 In addition to die matters set forth in Part 1 of this Schedule, the "Title is subject to rte following matters, and the Company insures against loss or damage sustained in the event that they are not subordinate to the lien of the Insured Mortgage: Attachment One (6-5-14) ® California Land Title Association, All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the dale of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. File No: 115080030 2006 ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: L (a) Any law, ordinance, pennit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion I (a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) at or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the "Title. 4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy. 5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A. The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses, that arise by reason of: The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage: I . (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown in the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records, 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and that are not shown by the Public Records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 6. Any lien or t fight to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records. 7. Variable exceptions such as taxes, casements, CC&R's, etc, shown here. Attachment One (6-5-14) ©California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. File No: 115080030 ALTA EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY (12-02-13) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: I. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion I(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3 Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, (his does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 or 28); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4, Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing - business laws of the state where the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury, or any consumer credit protection or truth -in -lending law. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 26. 6. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to Advances or modifications made atter the Insured has Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy, This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11. 7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching subsequent to Date of Policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11(b) or 25. 8. The failure of the residential structure, or any portion of it, to have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 5 or 6. 9. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 27(b) of this policy. 10. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence. 11. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances. Attachment One (6-5-14) © California Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to CLTA subscribers in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license or express permission from the California Land Title Association. A-36 File No: 115080030 i th I Lawyers Title Company LAwrsTitle 7530 N. Glenoaks Blvd. Burbank, CA 91504 Phone: (818) 767-2000 Fax: (818) 504-4937 Order No. 115080030 Notice of Available Discounts Pursuant to Section 2355.3 in Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("FNF") must deliver a notice of each discount available under our current rate filing along with the delivery of escrow instructions, a preliminary report or commitment. Please be aware that the provision of this notice does not constitute a waiver of the consumer's right to be charged the filed rate. As such, your transaction may not qualify for the below discounts. You are encouraged to discuss the applicability of one or more of the below discounts with a Company representative. These discounts are generally described below; consult the rate manual for a full description of the terms, conditions and requirements for such discount. These discounts only apply to transactions involving services rendered by the FNF Family of Companies. This notice only applies to transactions involving property improved with a one -to -four family residential dwelling. FNF Vnd r ritten j1tfe Compsjp FNF Underwriter LTC - Lawyers Title Company CLTIC - Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. Availabig Qiscognts DISASTER LOANS (CLTIC) The charge for a Lender's Policy (Standard or Extended coverage) covering the financing or refinancing by an owner of record, within 24 months of the date of a declaration of a disaster area by the government of the United States or the State of California on any land located in said area, which was partially or totally destroyed in the disaster, will be 50% of the appropriate title insurance rate. EMPLOYEE RATE (LTC and CLTIC) No charge shall be made to employees (including employees on approved retirement) of the Company or its underwritten, subsidiary or affiliated title companies for policies or escrow services in connection with financing, refinancing, sale or purchase of the employees' bona fide home property. Waiver of such charges is authorized only in connection with those costs which the employee would be obligated to pay, by established custom, as a party to the transaction. Notice of Available Discount Mod. 10/21/2011 CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 3 A-37 FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL PRIVACY NOTICE Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its majority-owned subsidiary companies providing real estate- and loan -related services (collectively, "FNF", "our" or "we") respect and are committed to protecting your privacy. This Privacy Notice lets you know how and for what purposes your Personal information (as defined herein) is being collected, processed and used by FNF. We pledge that we will take reasonable steps to ensure that your Personal Information will only be used in ways that are in compliance with this Privacy Notice_ This Privacy Notice is only in effect for any generic information and Personal information collected and/or owned by FNF, including collection through any FNF website and any online features, services and/or programs offered by FNF (collectively, the "Website"). This Privacy Notice is not applicable to any other web pages, mobile applications, social media sites, entail lists, generic information or Personal information collected and/or owned by any entity other than FNF. Collection and Use of Information The types of personal information FNF collects may include, among other things (collectively, "Personal Information"): (1) contact information (e.g., name, address, phone number, email address); (2) demographic information (e.g., date of birth, gender marital status); (3) Internet protocol (or IP) address or device ID/UDiD; (4) social security number (SSN), student ID (SIN), driver's license, passport, and other government ID numbers; (5) financial account information; and (6) information related to offenses or criminal convictions. In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from the following sources: • Applications or other forms we receive from you or your authorized representative; • Information we receive from you through the Website; • Information about your transactions with or services performed by us, our affiliates, or others; and • From consumer or other reporting agencies and public records maintained by governmental entities that we either obtain directly from those entities, or from our affiliates or others. information collected by FNF is used for three main purposes: To provide products and services to you or one or more third party service providers (collectively, "Third Parties") who are obtaining services on your behalf or in connection with a transaction involving you. To improve our products and services that we perform for you or for Third Parties. To communicate with you and to inform you about FNF's, FNF's affiliates and third parties' products and services. Additional Ways Information Is Collected Through tlig Website Browser Log Files. Our servers automatically log each visitor to the Website and collect and record certain information about each visitor. This information may include IP address, browser language, browser type, operating system, domain names, browsing history (including time spent at a domain, time and date of your visit), referring/exit web pages and URLs, and number of clicks. The domain name and iP address reveal nothing personal about the user other than the IP address from which the user has accessed the Website. Cookies. From time to time, FNF or other third parties may send a "cookie" to your computer. A cookie is a small piece of data that is sent to your Internet browser from a web server and stored on your computer's hard drive and that can be re -sent to the serving website on subsequent visits. A cookie, by itself, cannot read other data from your hard disk or read other cookie files already on your computer. A cookie, by itself, does not damage your system. We, our advertisers and other third parties may use cookies to identify and keep track of, among other things, those areas of the Website and third party websites that you have visited in the past in order to enhance your next visit to the Website. You can choose whether or not to accept cookies by changing the settings of your Internet browser, but some functionality of the Website may be impaired or not function as intended. See the Third Party Ont Out section below. Web Beacons. Some of our web pages and electronic communications may contain images, which may or may not be visible to you, known as Web Beacons (sometimes referred to as "clear gifs"). Web Beacons collect only limited information that includes a cookie number; time and date of a page view; and a description of the page on which the Web Beacon resides. We may also carry Web Beacons placed by third party advertisers. These Web Beacons do not carry any Personal Information and are only used to track usage of the Website and activities associated with the Website. See the Third Party 9121 Out section below. Unique Identifier. We may assign you a unique internal identifier to help keep track of your future visits. We may use this information to gather aggregate demographic information about our visitors, and we may use it to personalize the information you see on the Website and some of the electronic communications you receive from us. We keep this information for our internal use, and this information is not shared with others. Third Party Opt Out. Although we do not presently, in the future we may allow third -party companies to serve advertisements and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit the Website. These companies may use non - personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to the Websitc in order to provide advertisements about products and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party Web Beacon to collect this information, as further described above. Through these technologies, the third party may have access to and use non -personalized information about your online usage activity, You can opt -out of online behavioral services through any one of the ways described below. After you opt -out, you may continue to receive advertisements, but those advertisements will no longer be as relevant to you. • • You can opt -out via the Network Advertising Initiative industry opt -out at hito://www.networkadvertising.orw. • You can opt -out via the Consumer Choice Page at www.aboutads.info. • For those in the U.K., you can opt -out via the IAB UK's industry opt -out at www.youronlinechoices.com. • You can configure your web browser (Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, etc.) to delete and/or control the use of cookies. More information can be found in the Help system of your browser. Note: if you opt -out as described above, you should not delete your cookies. If you delete your cookies, you will need to opt -out again. When Information Is Disclosed By FNF We may provide your Personal information (excluding information we receive from consumer or other credit reporting agencies) to various individuals and companies, as permitted by law, without obtaining your prior authorization. Such laws do not allow consumers to restrict these disclosures. Disclosures may include, without limitation, the following: • To agents, brokers, representatives, or others to provide you with services you have requested, and to enable us to detect or prevent criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or nondisclosure in connection with an insurance transaction; • To third -party contractors or service providers who provide services or perform marketing services or other functions on our behalf; • To law enforcement or other governmental authority in connection with an investigation, or civil or criminal subpoenas or court orders; and/or • To lenders, lien holders, judgment creditors, or other parties claiming an encumbrance or an interest in title whose claim or interest must be determined, settled, paid or released Prior to a title or escrow closing. In addition to the other times when we might disclose information about you, we might also disclose information when required by law or in the good -faith belief that such disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with a legal process or applicable laws; (2) enforce this Privacy Notice; (3) respond to claims that any materials, documents, images, graphics, logos, designs, audio, video and any other information provided by you violates the rights of third parties; or (4) protect the rights, property or personal safety of FNF, its users or the public. We maintain reasonable safeguards to keep the Personal information that is disclosed to us secure. We provide Personal Information and non- Personal Information to our subsidiaries, affiliated companies, and other businesses or persons for the purposes of processing such information on our behalf and promoting the services of our trusted business partners, some or all of which may store your information on servers outside of the United States. We require that these parties agree to process such information in compliance with our Privacy Notice or in a similar, industry -standard manner, and we use reasonable efforts to limit their use of such information and to use other appropriate confidentiality and security measures. The use of your information by one of our trusted business partners may be subject to that party's own Privacy Notice. We do not, however, disclose information we collect from consumer or credit reporting agencies with our affiliates or others without your consent, in conformity with applicable law, unless such disclosure is otherwise permitted by law. We also reserve the right to disclose Personal Information and/or non -Personal Information to take precautions against liability, investigate and defend against any third -party claims or allegations, assist government enforcement agencies, protect the security or integrity of the Website, and protect the rights, property, or personal safety of FNF, our users or others. We reserve the right to transfer your Personal Information, as well as any other information, in connection with the sale or other disposition of all or part of the FNF business and/or assets. We also cannot make any representations regarding the use or transfer of your Personal Information or other information that we may have in the event of our bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, receivership or an assignment for the benefit of creditors, and you expressly agree and consent to the use and/or transfer of your Personal information or other information in connection with a sale or transfer of some or all of our assets in any of the above described proceedings. Furthermore, we cannot and will not be responsible for any breach of security by any third parties or for any actions of any third parties that receive any of the information that is disclosed to us. Information from Children We do not collect Personal information from any person that we know to be under the age of thirteen ()3). Specifically, the Website is not intended or designed to attract children under the age of thirteen (13). You affirm that you are either more than 18 years of age, or an emancipated minor, or possess legal parental or guardian consent, and are fully able and competent to enter into the terms, conditions, obligations, affirmations, representations, and warranties set forth in this Privacy Notice, and to abide by and comply with this Privacy Notice. In any case, you affirm that you are over the age of 13, as THE WEBSITE iS NOT INTENDED FOR CHILDREN UNDER 13 THAT ARE UNACCOMPANIED BY HIS OR HER PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN. Parents should be aware that FNF's Privacy Notice will govern our use of Personal Information, but also that information that is voluntarily given by children -- or others — in email exchanges, bulletin boards or the like may be used by otherap rbcs to generate unsolicited communications. FNF encourages all parents to instruct their children in the safe and responsible use of their Personal information while using the Internet_ Privacy Outside the Website The Website may contain various links to other websites, including links to various third party service providers. FNF is not and cannot be responsible for the privacy practices or the content of any of those other websites. Other than under agreements with certain reputable organizations and companies, and except for third party service providers A-39 whose services either we use or you voluntarily elect to utilize, we do not share any of the Personal Information that you provide to us with any of the websites to which the Website links, although we may share aggregate, non -Personal Information with those other third parties. Please check with those websites in order to determine their privacy policies and your rights under them. European Union Users If you are a citizen of the European Union, please note that we may transfer your Personal Information outside the European Union for use for any of the purposes described in this Privacy Notice. By providing FNF with your Personal Information, you consent to both our collection and such transfer of your Personal Information in accordance with this Privacy Notice. ices with Your Personal Information Whether you submit Personal Information to FNF is entirely up to you. You may decide not to submit Personal Information, in which case FNF may not be able to provide certain services or products to you. You may choose to prevent FNF from disclosing or using your Personal Information under certain circumstances (`opt out"). You may opt out of any disclosure or use of your Personal Information for purposes that are incompatible with the purpose(s) for which it was originally collected or for which you subsequently gave authorization by notifying us by one of the methods at the end of this Privacy Notice. Furthermore, even where your Personal Information is to be disclosed and used in accordance with the stated purposes in this Privacy Notice, you may elect to opt out of such disclosure to and use by a third party that is not acting as an agent of FNF. As described above, there are some uses from which you cannot Opt -out. Please note that opting out of the disclosure and use of your Personal Information as a prospective employee may prevent you from being hired as an employee by FNF to the extent that provision ofyour Personal Information is required to apply for an open position. If FNF collects Personal Information from you, such information will not be disclosed or used by FNF for purposes that arc incompatible with the purpose(s) for which it was originally collected or for which you subsequently gave authorization unless you affirmatively consent to such disclosure and use. You may opt out of online behavioral advertising by following the instructions set forth above under the above section "Additional Ways That Information Is Collected Through the Website," subsection "Third Party Opt Out." Access and Correction To access your Personal Information in the possession of FNF and correct inaccuracies of that information in our records, please contact us in the manner specified at the end of this Privacy Notice. We ask individuals to identify themselves and the information requested to be accessed and amended before processing such requests, and we may decline to process requests in limited circumstances as permitted by applicable privacy legislation. Your Calirornra Privacy Rights Under California's "Shine the Light" law, California residents who provide certain personally identifiable information in connection with obtaining products or services for personal, family or household use are entitled to request and obtain from us once a calendar year information about the customer information we shared, if any, with other businesses for their own direct marketing uses. If applicable, this information would include the categories of customer information and the names and addresses of those businesses with which we shared customer information for the immediately prior calendar year (e.g., requests made in 2013 will receive information regarding 2012 sharing activities). To obtain this information on behalf of FNF, please send an email message to privacy@fnfcom with "Request for California Privacy Information" in the subject line and in the body of your message. We will provide the requested information to you at your email address in response. Please be aware that not all information sharing is covered by the "Shine the Light" requirements and only information on covered sharing will be included in our response. Additionally, because we may collect your Personal Information from time to time, California's Online Privacy Protection Act requires us to disclose how we respond to "do not track" requests and other similar mechanisms. Currently, our policy is that we do not recognize "do not track" requests from Internet browsers and similar devices. Your Consent to This Privacy Notice By submitting Personal Information to FNF, you consent to the collection and use of information by us as specified above or as we otherwise see fit, in compliance with this Privacy Notice, unless you inform us otherwise by means of the procedure identified below. If we decide to change this Privacy Notice, we will make an effort to post those changes on the Website. Each time we collect information from you following any amendment of this Privacy Notice will signify your assent to and acceptance of its revised terms for all previously collected information and information collected from you in the future. We may use continents, information or feedback that you may submit in any manner that we may choose without notice or compensation to you. If you have additional questions or comments, please let us know by sending your comments or requests to: Fidelity National Financial, Inc. 601 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Attn: Chief Privacy Officer (888) 934-3354 privacy@fnf.com Copyright © 2014. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights Reserved. EFFECTIVE AS OF: JANUARY 24, 2014 LAST UPDATED: JANUARY 24, 2014 A I , J $ Co rj Cn LLJ V, 'k All fy- uj U eV 42 01 0- 04 .04 CAI INV oft 7, th It, 71, IA --k the data shown- els maynot c()Mp'Y with loco, Ot assumed t0f accuracy Is or -05- No liability , building sea only sttdiYisiOf' 0 c9 I I Id pe used for toWence purpo `^Thls map Shou A-41 P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 (Approval of Project) A-42 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT, EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,870 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE, 213 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING, AN ENTRY DECK THAT EXTENDS A MAXIMUM OF 6'-0" OVER AN EXTREME SLOPE, AND OTHER ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT (APN 7566-006-018) (CASE NO. ZON2011-00280) WHEREAS, on April 21, 1965, Tract Map 27142 was recorded with the County of Los Angeles, thereby creating the subject property along with the other properties within the Miraleste Hills community; and, WHEREAS, on October 10, 2011, the applicant submitted a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application to the Community Development Department requesting approval of a new 6,105 square foot, two-story residence and garage on an existing vacant lot, including 762 cubic yards of grading; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2011, the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, after the submittal of additional information and revised plans reducing the scale of the project and grading, the applicant submitted the last remaining information on October 29, 2013 and November 1, 2013; and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, Staff deemed the project complete; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. At that time, the Planning Commission found that the proposed project was not compatible with the immediate neighborhood based on the bulk and mass of the proposed structure. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the proposed grading for the new driveway/motor court and courtyard was excessive. After the applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension to the Permit Streamlining Act, which established a new decision deadline of April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to February 11, 2014 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address the concerns raised by the Staff and the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised project, which involved a reduction in the square footage of the residence from 5,597 square feet to 5,203 square feet, reduced amount of overall grading from 712 cubic yards to 466 cubic yards, increased side and rear yard setbacks, and the submittal of an Extreme Slope Permit for a deck to extend over an extreme slope in the front yard of project site. While the applicant attempted to address some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission, the proposed project continued to result in excessive grading and was not compatible with the neighborhood. A-43 As such, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-07, denying, without prejudice, the application request, on a 3 to 1 vote with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, and Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin, and Chairman Emenhiser absent; and, WHEREAS, On February 26, 2014, the applicant (Amir Esfahani) appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council requesting another opportunity to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns. Given the applicant's desire to further modify the project, the City Council, at its April 16, 2014 meeting, remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration; and, WHEREAS, in July and October 2014, revised plans (including an updated geotechnical report) were submitted to the City further reducing the overall size of the project, providing additional setbacks and articulation to the two-story structure, and eliminating the direct access driveway from Knoll View Dr., thereby providing access to the property via a private driveway easement adjacent to the north property line of the subject property. WHEREAS, on October 30, 2014, the revised project was deemed complete for processing; and, WHEREAS, on November 6, 2014, a 30 -day public notice for the revised project was sent to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 6, 2014; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. Seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. Seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that ZON2011-00280 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303) since the project involves construction of a new residence on a legally subdivided residential lot; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a Height Variation to allow the construction of a 4,870 square foot two-story residence: A. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process established by the City, and as directed by the Community Development Director, by mailing reduced copies of the project plans and a notice to all landowners within 500 feet of the subject property via registered mail. B. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Page 2 of 12 major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails), which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as City -designated viewing areas. Specifically, due to the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structure is not visible from a public viewing area or viewing site and will therefore, not impair a view. C. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject property is located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood, on an existing pad lot, zoned for residential development. The residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Municipal Code. D. The Height Variation is warranted because the portions of the new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, will not significantly impair City -protected views from the viewing areas of neighboring properties. Specifically, properties in the neighborhood which overlook the subject property are at a significantly higher elevation than the pad level of the subject lot, allowing protected viewing areas to continue to have unobstructed views over the proposed new residence and will only block the views of residences or buildings and foliage located down the hillside, which are not protected views. E. The Height Variation is warranted because proposed portions of the new residence that exceed sixteen feet in height are designed to minimize the impairment of a view, as the proposed residence is situated as close to the front of the lot as possible with the current design and at a significantly lower elevation, which allows a better angle over the proposed residence from the upslope neighboring properties. F. The Height Variation is warranted because granting the application would not cause significant cumulative view impairment, as the adjacent parcels located on the same downslope side as the subject parcel have also been constructed with 2 -story residences on a pad level that appears to be at the relatively same elevation as the subject lot. G. The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements, including the RS -2 zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage, property line setbacks, landscaping, and the required garage size for single-family residences that exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. H. The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed residence, as redesigned is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Specifically, the applicant has redesigned the project to provide undulating facades and articulation around all sides of the residence. Additionally, the applicant has redesigned the proposed driveway to take access from a private driveway easement to along the north side of the residence, which is compatible with other residences found along the east side of Knoll View Dr. Furthermore, the proposed project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style and bulk and mass. The proposed lot coverage and setbacks are consistent with those of the P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Page 3 of 12 UI i ^i surrounding properties. I. The Height Variation is warranted because the portion of the structure above 16 feet will not result in unreasonable infringement of privacy of the abutting residences. Specifically, the adjacent parcel's privacy will not be impacted any differently than what is already experienced, as each of the properties can be seen from Knoll View Drive over the currently vacant subject lot and the view onto the adjacent lots from proposed 2nd_ story windows, balconies and decks_ the will not be different from what is currently observed from the street. Section 2: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the Grading Permit to allow 213 cubic yards of cut and fill A. The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The subject property is located in a residential area designated by the City's Zoning Map as a RS -2 Zoning District. According to the City's General Plan and Development Code, a single family residence is classified as a permitted primary use in the RS Zoning District. As redesigned, the applicant is proposing a total of 213 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the construction of the new residence and ancillary site improvements. Of the total proposed grading, 160 cubic yards of fill is proposed to accommodate the new driveway/motor court, and 10 cubic yards of fill is proposed to shift the natural grade of the property along the south side of the motor court. The remaining grading accommodates a new pool, a level rear yard and a landing for pedestrian access from Knoll View Dr. Additionally, the applicant has utilized the private driveway to access the new residence without significantly altering the desired function of the home. Given the steep slopes that descend from the private driveway to the proposed garage, the retaining walls and fill to accommodate access to the garage will not be apparent from neighboring properties. B. The proposed grading/retaining wall would not cause any significant/adverse visual impacts to other neighboring properties as the proposed retaining wall would not be easily visible from other properties as it will face the interior of the lot. Furthermore, a small portion of the wall that may be slightly visible from the right-of-way will be screened by the landscaping in a planter. C. The grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The existing vacant lot was originally created as part of Tract 27142, with an extreme slope between the street and flat portion of the pad lot. Other neighboring lots east of the Knoll View Dr. exhibit similar topographic configurations, with vehicular access accommodated along shared private driveways that extend eastward from Knoll View Dr. The applicant has significantly reduced the scale of grading to accommodate access from the shared private driveway, as opposed to providing access directly off of Knoll View. As a result, a limited amount of grading (160 cubic yards of fill) is proposed to accommodate the new motor court and access to the garage. Given that a portion of this motor court extends into the existing slope, and would otherwise result in a large retaining wall, the applicant has redirected the contours of the property in a small P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Page 4 of 12 portion of the property just south of the motor court. The modified contours would be blended to follow the existing slope and the finished contours are reasonably natural as seen from Knoll View Dr 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. A majority of the proposed project will be located on the existing flat pad of the property with some minor grading in the rear yard to accommodate a new pool and flat, useable rear yard. The majority of the proposed grading would be located along the northwestern side of the new residence and would accommodate the construction of a motor court and access from a private driveway easement to the proposed garage. Given that the property descends approximately 9'-0" from the private easement to the flat pad of the property, the applicant is proposing to raise the finished floor of the garage and fill beneath the motor court to accommodate a raised driveway that accesses the garage. As seen from the private driveway easement and properties to the north, the new driveway on the subject property will appear to be at similar grade elevations as the private driveway easement. The applicant will be maintaining a majority of the extreme slope along the west side of the property, similar to other properties along the east side of Knoll View Dr. Additionally, in order to reduce potential impacts of a raised driveway, the applicant has blended the existing site topography with a man-made slope along the south side of the motor court. E. The grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The redesigned project addresses past concerns related to bulk and mass by providing undulating facades and additional articulation to the first and second floor facades. Additionally, the applicant has redesigned the project to address the grading concerns related to the construction of the new residence by eliminating the direct access driveway from Knoll View, as the Planning Commission found that a direct access driveway was incompatible with the neighborhood. In order to address this concern, the applicant provided access from a legal, private driveway along the north side of the property. This modified access accommodates a design that is compatible with the immediate neighborhood as most of the homes along the east side of Knoll View Dr. are accessed from private driveway easements that extend eastward from Knoll View Dr. F. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. The applicant has redesigned the project to eliminate driveway access from Knoll View. Instead, similar to other homes along the east side of Knoll View Dr. the applicant has provided access to the property via a legal, private driveway that extends eastward from Knoll View Dr., along the north side of the property. Therefore, as redesigned, the applicant is no longer altering the street design of Knoll View Dr. and is proposing a design that eliminates grading between the existing extreme slope along Knoll View and flat pad portion of the property, and minimizes grading that provides access to the residence along the private driveway, thereby keeping in character of the hillside properties along Knoll View Dr. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Page 5 of 12 &Z i G. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property. H. The grading conforms to the City's standards for height of cut and fill, and heights of retaining walls. Specifically, the proposed grading would not occur on a lot that was created prior to 1975, the proposed grading will not significantly alter the contours of the lot and no finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created. Lastly, the project includes one (1) 3'-5" tall upslope retaining wall and one (1) 3'-0" tall downslope retaining wall. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed grading on a slope with a 60% gradient, is permitted due to the following facts: 1) the first eight grading criterion have been met, 2) the request is consistent with the purpose of the Municipal Code, 3) approval of the grading permit will not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity, 4) departures from the standards of the grading criterion will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property. J. A required Notice of Decision will be given to the applicant and to all owners of property located adjacent to the subject property. Specifically, a Notice of Decision will be given to the following people: 1) 29840 Knoll View Dr., 2) 29844 Knoll View Dr., 3) 29848 Knoll View Dr., 4) 29866 Knoll View Dr., 5) 2957 Knoll View Dr., and 29845 Knoll View Dr. Section 3: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the Extreme Slope Permit to allow a portion of an entry deck in the front yard to extend a maximum of 6 -feet beyond the toe of an extreme slope: B. The Extreme Slope Permit can be supported because the site cannot reasonably accommodate the structure except on an extreme slope because a large portion of the front yard is comprised of an extreme slope and there is a limited amount of useable front yard area to provide access from the street to the residence. Specifically, the subject property is situated where the pad level of the property is located approximately 20 feet below of the street level, with an extreme slope descending from the street to the pad portion of the lot. In order to provide access to the front of the residence, which has been designed with the main public rooms on the upper level, the proposed walkway bridge over a portion of the extreme slope allows a walkway and usable front yard structure that would connect to steps carved into the slope and up to the street. Due to the design of the project, which is located at the toe of the extreme slope, any manner of providing access to the front of the property would involve going over the extreme slope. The site cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed walkway bridge without encroaching over the extreme slope. C. The Extreme Slope Permit will result in no significant adverse effect on neighboring properties in terms of view impairment, visual impact, slope instability, increased runoff and other adverse impact. The proposed walkway bridgbe/deck will be located at the front of the residence, between the proposed new structure and the street. As the P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Page 6 of 12 � � i extreme slope descends down to the residence, resulting in a valley -like space between the structure and the public right-of-way, there will be no adverse effects to neighboring properties. The sunken location of the deck will not be in any viewing area though it can be seen from the street, similar to other deck structures found on adjacent properties to provide access to the front of the residence. Furthermore, the deck would be required to obtain all building permits that comply with geological and building code requirements that will address any potential slope stability and/or drainage issues in conjunction with approval with the new residence. C. The Extreme Slope Permit can be supported because the walkway bridge/deck is located at the front of the property and a lower elevation from the street. Due to its location adjacent to the public right-of-way, at a lower elevation from the street, and located 27 feet from the adjacent property to the south Staff believes the deck would not result in any infringement of privacy more than can be observed from the street. Therefore, Staff believes this finding can be made D. The Extreme Slope Permit can be supported because any disturbance to the slope will be insignificant. As designed, there would be four pillars supporting the deck, of which only two will be located on the slope. The deck would then connect to a retaining wall where fill is proposed for a small flat area which would then fill the gap between where the deck ends and the stairs built into the slope. While there will be a 91 square foot area to provide the graded platform for the deck and slope, any disturbance caused by the proposed deck cantilevering over the slope will be insignificant. K. The Extreme Slope Permit can be supported because the General Plan designates the subject parcel for Residential 1-2 DU/acre, and the proposed deck is consistent with construction for residential development. The purpose of the Residential, 1-2 DU/acre land use designation in the General Plan is to allow for the development of low- to moderate -density residential neighborhoods, including the types of accessory structures normally associated with single-family residences, such as the proposed deck. In addition, Urban Environment Policy No. 3 calls upon the City to "encourage and assistin the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design." The extreme slope at the front of the residence restricts access to the front of the residence to where the use of a cantilevered deck is both reasonable and consistent with the immediate neighborhood. Also, the subject parcel is not located within the City's Coastal Zone, nor is it subject to any overlay control district standards. Section 4: With regard to the Site Plan Review, the proposed pool, spa, mechanical equipment and site fencing would comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and the maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS -2 zone. Further, as noted in the Height Variation findings above, the addition will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Section 5: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Page 7 of 12 any specific action being requested by the appellant. The standard fifteen (15) day appeal period shall be extended due to the closure of City Hall between December 24, 2014 and January 1, 2015. Any appeal letter must be filed by 4:30 PM, Friday, January 2, 2015. A $2,275 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 4:30 PM on January 2, 2015. Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope Permit and Site Plan Review (Planning Case No. ZON2011-00280) for the construction of a new 4,870 square foot, two-story residence with 213 cubic yards of grading and an entry deck that extends 6'-0" beyond the toe of an extreme lop located on a vacant lot with an APN of 7566-006-018, subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit 'A'. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of December 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Cruikshank, James, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Nelson and Chairman Leon NOES: Commissioner Emenhiser ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gerstner Gordon Leon Chairman Joel Rojas' P Uector Communi De elopment Secretary th Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Page 8 of 12 /' 1 EXHIBIT'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, ESP, SPR) (APN 7566-006-018.) General Conditions: Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 7. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Page 9 of 12 A-51 requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (38.7% proposed). 14. The approved additions shall maintain setbacks as depicted on the APPROVED plans for both the first and second floor additions. BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 15. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 16. 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 (3 -car garage proposed). P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Page 10 of 12 A-52 17. 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. 18. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 19. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 20. 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. Proiect Specific Conditions: 21. This approval is for a 4,870 square -foot, 2 -story single-family residence, which includes a 649 square -foot 3 -car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. 22. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 105.5'. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the Finished Grade Elevation at 79.5'. 23. 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. 24. All existing foliage located on the subject property along the north side property line, adjacent to the private driveway easement, shall be maintained in a thriving manner. Other than trees that need to be permanently removed to allow access to the applicant's property per the approved plan, if any of the existing trees on either property are damaged or removed during construction, the applicant shall provide new trees to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 25. No grading or improvement may commence within the private road easement to the north of the subject property without first obtaining written authorization from the legal P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Page 11 of 12 A-53 holders of the private driveway easement to allow proposed grading and improvements within the private street easement, Such authorization shall be in a form that can be recorded and shall be reviewed by the City Attorney. If written authorization from the easement holders is not obtained, the plans shall be modified to eliminate improvements from the private driveway easement. Said modified plan may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Condition No. 4. 26. Prior to ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, the property owner (applicant) shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that they have legal access to the subject property from the private driveway easement along the north side property line that is consistent with the driveway design approved by the Planning Commission, including the removal of any trees to allow for said legal access. 27. This project includes two retaining walls located adjacent to the proposed new driveway that will not exceed a height of 3'-5". 28, The proposed project includes a total of 213 cubic yards of grading as itemized below: • 27 cubic yards of cut for a new pool and spa • 160 cubic yards of fill for the construction of a new driveway • 10 cubic yards of fill along the southwest side of the new driveway 7 cubic yards of fill for a pedestrian landing in the front yard • 9 cubic yards of fill in the rear yard to the west of the new pool P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Page 12 of 12 P.C. Minutes (December 9, 2014) A-55 Chairman Leon stated that he visited the neighbor's back yard, noting that the neighbor Wks concerned about the height of the proposed structure. The neighbor requested the addition be as low as possible and not have pipes and solar r)anels that not increase the overdkheight. He asked if there was a way to condition this approval that any solar panels Qt increase the overall height above 16 feet. Director Roja§ stated that State law prohibits the City from regulating solar panels other than for safWsiusues. Commissioner Tol�iblin moved staff recommendations with the added referenced condition regarding covenant for any second unit, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Chairman Leon opene\th public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. �N The motion was approved, thereby. adopting PC Resolution 2014-33 (6-0). 4. Conditional Use Permit rev 'on Case No. ZON2014-00307: 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Commissioner Emenhiser recused himself froNhis item and left the dais. Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, Xplaining the proposal by Verizon Wireless to install two additional antenna panels on he additional monopole and add additional equipment in the existing equipment area. '80e stated staff visited the most affected property on Via la Cresta and determined that to.ie additional antenna panels will not cause any significant impacts. With that,a stated that staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the sf report. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Lindsay Ortega (representing Verizon Wireless) stated she was 'available for any questions. �� There being no questions, Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to accept staff's recommendation, secdoded by Commissioner James. PC Resolution 2014-34 was approved, (5-0). Commissioner Emenhiser returned to the dais. 5. Lot 7, Tract 27142 — Appeal of City Council remanded back to the Planning Commission to consider a revision. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 12 A-56 Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the Planning Commission denied this proposed project in February 2014 and it was appealed to the City Council. The City Council did not hear the item, but rather remanded it back to the Planning Commission to consider the revised design. She explained the current project, noting how it has been revised from the original design that was presented to the Commission. She stated that staff feels the applicant has addressed all of staff's concerns with this redesigned project and is recommending approval of the revised design. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that this will be the second largest house in the neighborhood on a lot that is below the neighborhood average. In looking at the current plans and the plans from February, he did not see a significant change. He asked what was driving staff to now recommend approval of the project, as the changes seem to be relatively minor, Associate Planner Mikhail explained that on the previous plan the overall size of the project and how it failed to articulate the fagade of the residence, as well as the large motor court and retaining walls exacerbated the issue of compatibility and scale of the project. She stated that with this current project the design has been softened and further articulated, the motor court has been reduced, and many of the retaining walls associated with the driveway have been eliminated. These revisions have led staff to recommend approval as currently designed. Commissioner James stated he was concerned about lot coverage. He noted that average lot coverage of the twenty closest homes is approximately 18 percent, but the proposed lot coverage for this home will be 38.7 percent. He noted this does not include the motor court or the swimming pool. He asked if this was a concern for staff. Associate Planner Mikhail clarified that the Table in the staff report notes the lot size and the structure size of the homes in the neighborhood, however it does not necessarily compute the lot coverages for all of those properties. She noted that lot coverage includes not only the house, but covered patios, driveways, and any impervious surfaces. She referred to an aerial photo of the neighborhood and showed how the different lots have quite a bit of lot coverage, which she felt were likely close to the 40 percent allowance in the RS2 zoning district. Chairman Leon asked staff if the driveway is an easement, and if the driveway is owned by the adjacent property owners. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that it is the City's understanding that the driveway is on an easement to allow access to the subject property. Chairman Leon asked if the trees along the driveway are on the easement or on private property. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 13 A-57 Associate Planner Mikhail answered that, in speaking with the applicant, it is her understanding that one of the trees is on the applicant's property and the remaining trees are shared across the property line. Chairman Leon asked if the easement addresses trees. Associate Planner Mikhail did not believe the easement language addresses trees, but rather the easement is strictly for ingress and egress. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Ben Cauthen (designer on the project) stated that in regards to the trees, it is their intention to try their very best to keep the trees. He noted a small section will have to be removed to access the property, but anything removed will be replaced if possible. He explained that the front slope has forced the house rather far down the lot, but he felt that there is still a good setback in the rear so the house doesn't appear to loom over the neighboring home. He noted there is a required 15 foot rear setback and the house is currently proposed at approximately 40 feet from the rear property line. He noted the private driveway has been removed and did a lot to reduce the amount of grading, He stated the lot coverage and square footages have been reduced and he has made as many reductions as possible. Amir Esfahani (property owner) stated he was available to answer any questions. Marshall Rutter stated he is an attorney representing Maynard Sorenson who is the owner of the property immediately to the east of the applicant's property. He noted Mr. Sorenson is one of the easement holders. He pointed out the trees along the driveway, and explained that they are essential in supporting the driveway that drops down. He stated the proposal is to remove some trees approximately 50 feet down from Knoll View Drive and eventually replace them. He questioned how that can be done, and that removing these trees will substantially reduce the lateral support of the property. He also felt that the proposed house will appear to be a mcmansion from the street and from Mr. Sorenson's home, as it is very wide and there is a tremendous amount of lot coverage. He referred to condition of approval Nos. 24 and 25, and noted Mr. Sorenson does not intend to give his permission for any foliage removal. Commissioner James noted that some of the trees that are proposed to be removed will be replaced with the entry to the driveway. He asked if the concern is that in doing so the driveway will not provide the same lateral support as the trees currently provide. He asked if Mr. Rutter's client could be assured that the lateral support would be maintained by whatever the trees are replaced with, would that be satisfactory to his client. Mr. Rutter stated he is not an engineer and cannot answer that question. He showed in an aerial photo a gap in the trees where Mr. Sorenson believed the access to Mr. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 14 • Esfahani's property would take place. He explained that his client does not like the idea of losing his trees, and he would have to consult with him before answering further. Don Sorenson explained that the proposed cut in the driveway creates a safety hazard for everyone who shares the driveway easement. He supported a private driveway entrances off of Knoll View Drive. He was also concerned with the drainage runoff from the property, and hasn't yet seen how the water will exit the subject property to get to the City storm drain, given the applicant's plan to cover the existing swale. He felt the mass of the proposed structure will be very visible through the cut in the trees, and a huge wall of the structure will be visible. Finally, he stated he met with several neighbors yesterday and none of them were aware of this Planning Commission meeting. He asked that this item be continued so that the other neighbors could speak to the Commission and staff to express their views. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Sorenson how far on either side of the trees his property boundary extends. Mr. Sorenson answered that his deed calls for a 10 foot boundary from the center line of the driveway to the south towards the subject property. Lavon Sorenson explained that when these lots were first created it was set up that the driveway be used from Knoll View until the easement was created, and she was hoping the architect and current owner would consider the direct access from Knoll View. She also stated that when standing in her backyard near the bedroom windows she can look up and see where the floor space will be and was very concerned about privacy issues. Ben Cauthen (in rebuttal) stated he supported the Sorenson's idea of going back to the original proposed driveway. He noted that he could not see a different in the safety issue if the driveway were at the bottom of the easement or in the middle of the easement. He pointed out that if he were living at the Sorenson's residence he wouldn't want the driveway to be farther down on the street, as that would mean the motor court would be closer to their property, as well as the garage. He pointed out that the house is currently proposed 40 feet from the property line and there is another 15 feet to the Sorenson's house, and the applicant has been very sensitive to keep the house as far from the Sorenson's residence as possible, He felt this was a much bigger benefit to them than keeping certain trees. He stated he was more than willing to close that 10 foot gap in the trees near the bottom of the easement. Amir Esfahani added that he wants to have a good relationship with his neighbors, noting that the existing trees are also beneficial to him as they offer some privacy. Therefore, he will keep the trees to the extent possible. He noted that he too has children and safety is a big concern. He feels that putting the driveway up farther on the easement is a much safer location than lower down on the easement. Commissioner Cruikshank asked if there was any plan to cover the existing swale as mentioned by Mr. Sorenson. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 15 A-59 Mr. Cauthen answered that he has not yet prepared engineered drainage plans. He stated that there may be a new swale constructed or there may be underground piping, but whatever the method the water will be taken care of and approved by the City. Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff to explain the concern of accessing the property from Knoll View Drive. Associate Planner Mikhail explained staff's concern was that the retaining wall and associated fill to allow the access directly from Knoll View Drive was excessive, and couldn't support the project based on this design knowing that the applicant had legal access across the easement. She explained that the design of providing access along the easement is more compatible with some of the other homes in that neighborhood, as opposed to taking direct access off the street. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Cauthen if he would be agreeable to a condition of approval that any removed trees be replaced with a minimum 24 inch box tree. Mr. Cauthen was agreeable to such a condition. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Rutter to return to the dais. Commissioner Tomblin reviewed the Title Report included in the staff report, noting that the Title Report does not restrict how the easement is used or where access is taken to the property from the driveway easement. Mr. Rutter agreed there did not appear to be restrictions on how easement is used except that the underlying property belongs to Mr. Sorenson and the neighbor. He noted that the applicants have the right to drive over the property on the easement, however they do not have the right to alter the property. He stated this includes removing trees from the property or altering the slope of the driveway. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to support and approve staff's recommendation to approve the project as conditioned, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Cruikshank commented that the survey and plans submitted to the Commission were very difficult to read and a lot of items were missing from the survey. He also questioned if modifying the driveway made sense in terms of drainage. Commissioner Tomblin moved to amend the motion to add a condition that, wherever possible any tree removed be replaced with a 24 inch box tree. Vice Chairman Nelson accepted the amendment. Chairman Leon was concerned with the issue that the easement owner will allow or has the right to disallow access from his driveway. He felt this could dramatically impact the overall design of the project the Planning Commission is being asked to approve. He thought there should be a condition of approval that the approval is contingent upon resolving that issue. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 16 Director Rojas stated there is a condition regarding grading because grading in the easement requires permission from the easement holder. The issue of the tree removal, however, raises the question of whether or not the applicant has the right to remove the trees from the access easement, and that question becomes a civil issue between the parties, He thought the Chairman might be contemplating a condition that says this approval is contingent upon the applicant demonstrating the right to access the property where proposed, which would include the removal of trees. Chairman Leon agreed. Commissioner Tomblin stated the Planning Commission could then possibly approve the project, however the applicant may not necessarily be able to build the project as approved, pending permission from the easement holder. Chairman Leon moved to amend the motion to require that prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate their right to access the property where proposed, which includes the removal of any trees to allow for said legal access. Vice Chairman Nelson accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin, Commissioner James noted that Mr. Sorenson had stated that none of the neighbors were aware of tonight's meeting. He asked staff if all required notifications had been sent. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that all required notices had been sent out regarding this meeting. The motion to approve the project as amended, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2014-35 was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting. 6. - FencefWall Permit (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415): 29023 rucegrove Drive Senior Plannef.. Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the scope and history of thb�project, noting that the Planning Commission had heard and upheld an appeal of the "Director's decision. Subsequently, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed ' --to. the City Council, who remanded the case back to the Planning Commission. The Ity Council felt that the entire wall, consisting of sections A, B, C, and D in the staff repo; -be considered together as a single structure by the Planning Commission. She explained•the appellant was requesting the approval for the entire wall be overturned, primarily based -,Qn view impacts, and it be replaced at a height equivalent to a former wall at the site%4§he showed photos taken from the appellant's viewing area which demonstrate the heig t-vf the approved wall, explaining that staff felt the amount of ocean view that would be itl"ired by the approved wall would not be significant. She also explained that the appellahl's feel they also have a view from their kitchen window, and staff showed a photo Ga Q from the kitchen Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2014 Page 17 A-61 Late Correspondence (December 9, 2014 P.C. Meeting) A-62 J�rn 4k- 15 - LAW LAW OFFICE OF MARSHALL A. RU'11'ER A Professional Corporation December 8, 2014 Via Facsimile to (310) 544-5293 & email to planningeTv.com and Lezamorpv.com Joel Rojas, Community Development Director Leza Mikhil, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department Re: Height Variation, Grading, Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit Case Number: ZON2011-00280 Dear Mr. Rojas and Ms. Mikhil: The record of earlier proceedings in this application will reflect that I am the attorney for S & K Industries, owned by Maynard D. Sorenson. S & K Industries owns the property located at 29848 Knoll View Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, which is located immediately east of the property which is the subject of the above case on which there is a hearing on December 9, 2014. He is the owner of the driveway from Knoll View Drive to his property. The trees lining the driveway adjacent to the property which is subject to this application are planted on his property. Mr. Sorenson objects to the granting of the permit and the adoption of the resolution proposed to be adopted in this case. The proposal made by the owner of the undeveloped property calls for the removal of trees in order for the owner to obtain access to his new driveway. This is not acceptable to Mr. Sorenson, and he will not grant permission for the removal of those trees. The plans for the granting of access to the subject property call for a change in the slope or profile of the driveway. Mr. Sorenson, the owner of the property, will not grant permission to change the slope or profile. The proposed resolution with respect to the granting of this permit contains two "Project Specific Conditions", namely numbers 24 and 25. Number 24 provides: "All existing foliage located along the north side property line, adjacent to the private driveway easement, shall be maintained in a thriving manner. Should these trees be Pasadena Office 1 70 South Laky Avenue, Suite 810. Pasadena, Califorma 91101 1 t: 626-84t —0 f:626-844-77-73 Century City Office 1 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1'00, Los Angeles, C4140rn1a 9tR16" 6018 1 t, 110 29t, 04.48 f: 626 814 mrullcrurruttetlan..um I ttttn.ildk•iSat.train "-63 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Case No. ZON2011-00280 December 8, 2014 Page 2 damaged during construction, the applicant shall provide new trees to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development." The trees along the north side of the property line belong to Mr. Sorenson. The City does not have the authority to permit them to be removed or damaged. They protect the steep embankment from erosion and collapse. They provide essential support to the driveway. This specific condition is not adequate to protect Mr. Sorenson's property. Number 25 reads as follows: "No grading or improvement may commence within the private road easement to the north of the subject property without first obtaining written authorization from the legal holders of the private driveway easement to allow proposed grading and improvements within the private street easement. Such authorization shall be in a form that can be recorded and shall be reviewed by the City Attorney. If written authorization from the easement holders is not obtained, the plans shall be modified to eliminate improvements from the private driveway easement. Said modified plan may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Condition No. 4." Mr. Sorenson will not provide written authorization to allow the proposed grading and improvements within the private street easement. Thus, the plans produced by the owner will have to be modified to eliminate these changes. There is a gap in the trees and a level place at the bottom of the driveway adjacent to Mr. Sorenson's property that should be used by the owner of the subject property, rather than modifying the driveway, removing foliage, and creating an entirely new space to obtain access to the subject property. As an alternative, Mr. Sorenson does not object to the original proposal that there be a separate driveway from Knoll View Drive to the subject property and its garage. Mr. Sorenson further objects to the proposed plans in that they appear to call for a removal of a swale between the subject property and Mr. Sorenson's property. This swale provides essential drainage. The plans for the subject property appear to call for the construction of a concrete culvert, but it is not at all clear how this culvert will be connected to property drainage facilities. This threatens Mr. Sorenson's property with flooding. This is particularly serious, as the land immediately west of Mr. Sorenson's property is now soil, and it is planned to be covered with hard surfaces, which will send water onto Mr. Sorenson's property if not properly disposed of. F" e S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Case No. ZON2011-00280 December 8, 2014 Page 3 Finally, Mr. Sorenson objects to the height of the proposed residence as it is close to his own home and will permit residents and visitors a clear line of sight into his yard and home. His privacy will be destroyed. T request, on behalf of Mr. Sorenson, that there be a further postponement of the hearing so that these matters may be taken up by the Commission, Mr. Sorenson, and the owner of the subject property. Very truly yours, Marshall A. Rutter MAR:cw cc: Don Sorenson �lecln�s Leza Mikhail rom: Msipprell <msipprell@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 11:16 AM To: Leza Mikhail Subject: Re: Dear Leza, I am writing to you because I am unable, due to illness, to attend the meeting this evening at which the Knoll View property is being considered. I feel that the home being proposed is too large for the lot and that it is not in keeping with the rest of the homes in the area. I have lived in Miraleste Hills for twenty eight years and have watched some homes built that were out of touch with the ambiance of the area and wished that more thought had been given before they were okayed. Sincerely, Mary Faith Sipprell 30048 Knoll View ent from my Wad On Dec 9, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Leza Mikhail <LezaMCWrpv.com> wrote: P.C. Staff Report (December 9, 2014) A-67 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: CHAIRMAIN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY E E MENT DIRECTOR DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2014 SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING, SITE PLAN REVIEW & EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT (CASE NO. ON2011-002$0) Project Planner: Leza Mikhail, Associate Plann r RECOMMENDATION Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_, thereby approving with conditions, a Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00280), for the construction of a 4,870 square foot, two-story residence and 213 cubic yards of associated grading on a vacant lot (APN 7566-006-018) located on Knoll View Dr. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2011, an application was submitted by Mr. Amir Esfahani requesting approval of a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 2 -story single- family residence and garage on an existing vacant lot. The project included grading for the creation of a new driveway, motor court, and front yard area, along with accessory structures in the rear yard area. After multiple revisions were made to the project, the application was deemed complete on November 4, 2013. On December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing and found that the proposed residence was not compatible with the neighborhood based on the proposed structure's bulk and mass. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the proposed grading for the new driveway, motor court and courtyard was excessive. After the applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension, which established a new decision deadline of April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on this item to February 11, 2014, to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project and address the concerns raised by Staff and the Planning Commission at the public hearing. On February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised project, which involved a reduction in the square footage of the residence from 5,597 square feet to 5,203 square feet, reduction in the amount of overall grading from 712 cubic yards to 466 cubic yards, increased side and rear yard setbacks, and the processing of an Extreme Slope Permit for a deck to extend over an extreme slope in the front yard of the project site. While the applicant attempted to address some of the concerns raised at the December 10th Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission found that the proposed project continued to result in excessive grading and was not compatible with the neighborhood. As such, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07, denying, without prejudice, the requested application, on a 3 to 1 vote with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, and Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin, and Chairman Emenhiser absent. � •i Case No. ZON2011-00280 %..t/, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani December 9, 2014 On February 26, 2014, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, requesting another opportunity to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns. Given the applicant's desire to further redesign the project, the City Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. In July and October 2014, revised plans (and updated geology) were submitted to the City which propose to reduce the overall size of the project, provide additional setbacks and articulation to the two-story structure, and eliminate the direct access driveway from Knoll View Dr., thereby providing access to the property via an existing private driveway easement adjacent to the north property line of the subject property. The application was deemed complete on October 30, 2014, and on November 6, 2014, a 30 -day public notice for the revised project was sent to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 6, 2014. As of the preparation of this report, Staff has not received any public comments regarding the revised project. DISCUSSION The following chart summarizes the changes between the original proposed project presented to the Planning Commission on December 10, 2013, the revised project denied by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2014, and the current revised project before the Planning Commission (December 9, 2014): Table 1 — Comparison of the Original and Revised Projects for Lot 7 Structure Size Upper Level Original Project (12-10-14) Denied Project 2-11-14 4 Change Revised Project 12-9-14 Change _ 3,077 SF 3,030 SF -47 SF 2,972 SF -58 SF Lower Level 1,837 SF 1,524 SF -313 SF 1,249 SF -275 SF Garage 683 SF 649 SF -34 SF 649 SF 0 Total 5,597 SF 5,203 SF -394 SF 4,870 -333 SF Lot Coverage 40% 39.6% -0.4% 38.7% -0.9% Gradin Cut 162 CY 106 CY -56 CY 27 CY -79 CY Fill 600 CY 360 CY -240 CY 186 CY -174 CY Total 762 CY 466 CY -296 CY 213 CY -253 CY Setbacks Front 35'-10" 35-10" 0 35-10" 0 North Side 7'-6" 8'-0" + 6" 8'-0" 0 South Side 5'-0" 6'-6" +11-61 8'-6" + 2'-0" Rear 40'-4" 46'-5" + 6'-1" 46'-5" 0 A discussion of the different project variations captured in the table above is contained in the previous, December 2013 and February 2014 Staff Reports which are attached. The discussion below on the revised project only pertains to the findings related to the previous Staff and Planning Commission's concerns with neighborhood compatibility and grading that led to the Planning Commission's denial of the project in February 2014. Case No. ZON2011-00280 %..V, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahani December 9, 2014 Height Variation Finding No. 8 (Neighborhood Compatibility) When presented at the December 10th and February 2nd public hearings, Staff and the Planning Commission were unable to make Neighborhood Compatibility Finding No. 8. Staff noted that the proposed residence appeared large as seen from the adjacent properties, as well as when driving along Knoll View Drive. The Planning Commission agreed with Staff's assessment and commented that more revisions were needed to adequately reduce the overall appearance of the structure's perceived bulk and mass. As shown in the chart on the previous page, the project has been further revised to reduce the size of the residence, as well as slightly increasing the structure setbacks. The rear facade of the residence is now slightly setback behind the rear fagade of the neighboring residence to the south, thereby maintaining a rear yard setback that is similar to the rear yard setbacks found on adjacent properties with similar lot configurations. Additionally, the revised structure now includes an abundance of undulating facades to break up the appearance of the two-story structure as seen from the street and surrounding residences. The applicant has further articulated the north and south facades by combining arches and low planters to soften the appearance of the residence as viewed from the closest neighboring properties. At the February 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented a plan that was reduced from 5,597 square feet to 5,203 square feet, providing a reduction of 394 square feet. The size of the proposed residence has been further reduced from 5,203 square feet to 4,870 square feet, providing a structure size reduction of 333 square feet since February 2014 and 727 square feet since December 2013. Table 2 below compares the 20 -closest homes in the immediate neighborhood, as was used in the previous reports, with the both the previously proposed project and the currently revised project. Table 2 - Comparison of Structure Sizes in the Immediate Neighborhood for Lot 7 Address Lot Size (Square Feet) Structure Size (Square Feet) Number of Stories 29806 Knoll View Drive 14,091 3,191 2 29815 Knoll View Drive 18,252 3,260 2 29816 Knoll View Drive 13,231 3,360 2 29823 Knoll View Drive 17,801 3,157 1 29826 Knoll View Drive 17,558 3,542 2 29839 Knoll View Drive 15,857 2,790 1 29840 Knoll View Drive 15,680 3,320 2 29841 Knoll View Drive 24,140 5,360 2 29844 Knoll View Drive 23,529 3,460 2 29845 Knoll View Drive 18,659 3,187 1 29848 Knoll View Drive 15,731 2,760 1 29857 Knoll View Drive 16,717 2,760 1 29865 Knoll View Drive 16,126 2,960 2 29866 Knoll View Drive 13,661 3,360 2 29868 Knoll View Drive 15,842 2,877 1 A-70 Case No. ZON2011-00280 %.,V, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani December 9, 2014 29870 Knoll View Drive 37,680 3,740 2 29872 Knoll View Drive 15,766 2,335 1 29897 Knoll View Drive 14,033 2,820 1 29939 Knoll View Drive 14,012 3,460 1 29949 Knoll View Drive 13,170 2,830 1 AVERAGE 17,577 3,226 2 Lot 7 on Knoll View 15,351 5,597 (Original) 2 5,203 (1St Revision 2 4,870 Current Revision 2 • Bold denotes largest lot or structure size within 20 closest properties As noted in Tables 1 and 2 above, the overall size of the residence has been reduced to be within the range of structure sizes in the immediate neighborhood. The revised project would be 4,870 square feet, which is less than the existing largest residence in the immediate neighborhood (listed at 5,360 square feet). Additionally, as noted in Table 1, the overall lot coverage was further reduced, from 39.6% to 38.7%. At the February 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, Staff opined that the residence did not provide adequate undulation between the upper level and lower level to reduce the bulk and mass of the structure. This concern was exacerbated by the retaining walls and the motor court that accommodated a driveway that provided access to the property from Knoll View Dr. instead of the adjacent driveway easement to the north. With the most recent design, the applicant has now eliminated the large retaining walls at the front of the residence and provided a driveway that accesses the property from the adjacent driveway easement on the north side of the property. Additionally, the applicant has provided low-lying planters and arches to break up the overall appearance of the two-story fagade as seen from the properties to the north and south. Furthermore, the north -facing second -story fagade is broken up by accommodating covered outdoor living areas that are not surrounded by walls. As this portion of the structure is not enclosed by walls, the north -facing fagade does not appear to be bulky and massive. As redesigned, Staff feels that the project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood because the applicant has now provided a structure that minimizes the apparent bulk and mass of the proposed two-story residence through undulating facades and articulation along the north and south sides of the proposed structure. As such, Staff is now able to make Height Variation Finding No. 8, and recommends approving the Height Variation for the redesigned project. Grading Findings At the December 10th and February 11th Planning Commission meetings, Staff and the Planning Commission felt that the proposed project did not meet six (6) of the nine (9) required grading criterion for approval of a Grading Permit. Originally, the project involved a total of 762 cubic yards of grading, 600 cubic yards of which were proposed for a new driveway and motor court, as well as a courtyard area at the front of the residence. As part of a revised project presented to the Planning Commission on February 11, 2014, the courtyard was reduced to a small pad area connecting to a cantilevered deck, which consisted of 7 cubic yards of fill with a 5 foot tall retaining wall, and resulted in a total of 466 cubic yards of grading. The majority of fill was for the proposed new driveway and motor court that accommodated access to a garage on the upper story of the residence that would A-71 Case No. ZON2011-00280 k..✓, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani December 9, 2014 have been directly accessed from Knoll View Dr. The Planning Commission found that as revised, the grading needed for the proposed driveway and motor court was unnecessary, excessive, incompatible and continued to not meet six (6) of the nine (9) required grading criteria. This was largely due to the fact that the property owner has the legal right to access the subject property via a dedicated access easement over an existing driveway that is part of the two abutting properties (29844 and 29848 Knoll View Drive), making the grading for the proposed driveway unnecessary. Given these concerns, the applicant has redesigned the project to eliminate the driveway access from Knoll View, and provide access to the property via the existing driveway easement to the north of the property. As a result, the overall cubic yardage of grading has been reduced from 466 cubic yards to 213 cubic yards of total grading (see Table 1 for grading revisions). As a result of redesigned project, Staff has reanalyzed the proposed grading based on the following grading criterion that were previously not supported: 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot; The subject property is located in a residential area designated by the City's Zoning Map as a RS -2 Zoning District. According to the City's General Plan and Development Code, a single family residence is classified as a permitted primary use in the RS Zoning District. As redesigned, the applicant is proposing a total of 213 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the construction of the new residence and ancillary site improvements. Of the total proposed grading, 160 cubic yards of fill is proposed to accommodate the new driveway/motor court, and 10 cubic yards of fill is proposed to shift the natural grade of the property along the south side of the motor court. The remaining grading accommodates a new pool, a level rear yard and a landing for pedestrian access from Knoll View Dr. As redesigned, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed grading is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot to accommodate a new single-family residence. Furthermore, the applicant has utilized the private driveway to access the new residence without significantly altering the desired function of the home for the applicant. Given the steep slopes that descend from the private driveway to the proposed garage, the retaining walls and fill to accommodate access to the garage will not be apparent from neighboring properties. As such, as redesigned, this grading criterion has been met. 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural; The existing vacant lot was originally created as part of Tract 27142, with an extreme slope between the street and flat portion of the pad lot. Other neighboring lots east of the Knoll View Dr. exhibit similar topographic configurations, with vehicular access accommodated along shared private driveways that extend eastward from Knoll View Dr. The applicant has significantly reduced the scale of grading to accommodate access from the shared private driveway, as opposed to providing access directly off Knoll View Dr. As a result, a limited amount of grading (160 cubic yards of fill) is proposed to accommodate the new driveway/motor court and access to the garage. Given that a portion of this motor court extends into the existing slope, and would otherwise result in a large retaining wall, the applicant has redirected the contours of the property in a small portion of the property just south of the driveway/motor court. The modified contours would be blended to follow the existing slope and the finished contours are reasonably natural as seen from Knoll View Dr. As such, as redesigned, this grading criterion has been met. A-72 Case No. ZON2011-00280 ..✓, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani December 9, 2014 4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography; A majority of the proposed project will be located on the existing flat pad of the property with some minor grading in the rear yard to accommodate a new pool and useable rear yard. The majority of the proposed grading would be located along the northwestern side of the new residence and would accommodate the construction of a motor court and access from a private driveway easement to the proposed garage. Given that the property descends approximately 9'-0" from the private easement to the flat pad of the property, the applicant is proposing to raise the finished floor of the garage and fill beneath the motor court to accommodate a raised driveway that accesses the garage. As seen from the private driveway easement and properties to the north, the new driveway on the subject property will appear to be at similar grade elevations as the private driveway easement. The applicant will be maintaining a majority of the extreme slope along the west side of the property, similar to other properties along the east side of Knoll View Dr. Additionally, in order to reduce potential impacts of a raised driveway, the applicant has blended the existing site topography with a man-made slope along the south side of the motor court. Therefore, as redesigned, this criterion has been met. 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character; As previously noted in this Report, the applicant has redesigned the project to address concerns related to bulk and mass. Additionally, the applicant has redesigned the project address the grading concerns related to the construction of the new residence. Specifically, the applicant has eliminated the direct access driveway from Knoll View, as the Planning Commission found that a direct access driveway was incompatible with the neighborhood. In order to address this concern, the applicant provided access from a legal, private driveway along the north side of the property. This modified access accommodates a design that is compatible with the immediate neighborhood as most of the homes along the east side of Knoll View are accessed from private driveway easements that extend eastward from Knoll View. As such, as redesigned, this grading criterion has been met. 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside; and The applicant has redesigned the project to eliminate driveway access from Knoll View Dr., and instead provides access to the property via a legal, private driveway that extends eastward from Knoll View Dr., along the north side of the property. Therefore, as redesigned, the applicant is no longer altering the street design of Knoll View Dr. and is proposing a design that eliminates grading between the existing extreme slope along Knoll View and flat pad portion of the property, and minimizes grading that provides access to the residence along the private driveway, thereby keeping in character of the hillside properties along Knoll View Dr. As such, as redesigned, this grading criterion can be met. 9. The grading conforms to the City's Standards for grading on slopes, creation of new slopes, heights of retaining walls, and maximum driveway steepness (summarized below in Table 2) A-73 Case No. ZON2011-00280 ..d, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahan! December 9, 2014 Municipal Code Section 17.76.040(E)(9) establishes additional grading criteria. The table below summarizes the proposed project's consistency with these criteria. Table 3 — Project's Consistency with City's Standard Grading Criteria Development Grading Proposed Standards Criteria Permitted on vacant lots, created prior to Residence not proposed Construction on slopes the City's incorporation, based upon a on a slope of 35% or over 35% Steepness finding that the grading will not threaten greater public health, safety and welfare (consistent) 17.76.040(E)(9 a Less than 35% steepness, unless next to Slopes adjacent to Maximum finished a driveway where up to 67% steepness driveway are less than slopes is permitted 67% [17.76.040(E)(9)(b) Consistent 5' depth, unless based upon a finding 8' depth of fill for that unusual topography, soil conditions, driveway/motor court is Maximum depth of cut previous grading or other circumstances reasonable to provide or fill make such grading reasonable and vehicular access necessary _117.76.040(E)(9)(c)] (Consistent) Restricted grading No grading on slopes over 50% Grading on slope more steepness than 50% areas 17.76.040(E)(9)(d)] Not consistent One 8' -tall upslope wall No upslope walls are [17.76.040(E)(9)(e)(i)] proposed One 3'/' -tall downslope wall No downslope walls are [17.76.040(E)(9)(e)(ii)] proposed One 31/2' -tall up- or downslope wall in One S-0" tall downslope Retaining Walls each side yard wall in side yard 17.76.040E 9) a iii Consistent One 5' -tall up- or downslope wall One 3' -5" -tall upslope wall adjacent to driveway adjacent to the driveway 17.76.040E 9 e iv Consistent Retaining walls within building footprint Retaining walls adjacent may exceed 8' to driveway [17.76.040(E)(9)(e)(v)] (consistent) 20% maximum slope permitted, with a Less than 20% Driveway single 10' -long section up to 22% slope 17.76.040E 9 i consistent Driveways 67% slopes permitted adjacent to Slopes adjacent to the driveways driveway not greater than [17.76.040(E)(9)(f)(ii)] 60% consistent &M, Case No. ZON2011-00280 �..d, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani December 9, 2014 With the exception of grading of a slope of 50% or more, the majority of the proposed grading and associated retaining walls are consistent with the grading criterion listed in Table 3 above. As the project would involve grading on a slope with a 60% gradient, the application is not consistent with the grading criterion that limits grading to areas where slopes do not exceed a 50% gradient. However the Planning Commission is allowed to approve a Grading Permit that does not conform to these standards, provided that the following four findings can be adopted: a) The first eight criterion in subsection (E)(1) through (E)(8) have been met. As noted in the discussion above, Staff's opinion is that all eight criteria are being met with the revised design of the project; therefore, this finding can be adopted. b) The second finding is that the request is consistent with the purpose of Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040. Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040 states, "the purpose of the chapter is to provide reasonable development of land, ensure the maximum preservation of the scenic character of the area, ensure that the development of properties occurs in a manner harmonious to adjoining properties, and that the project complies with the goals and polices of the General Plan. "By allowing the deviations in the grading standards, the applicant is able to provide a driveway that is accessed from the private driveway easement to the north of the property. This design is similar to other residential properties located along the east side of Knoll View Dr., whereby private driveway easements are utilized for access to multiple properties. The grading is limited to a small portion of the slope along north side of the property, thereby ensuring that scenic character of the area is preserved and the design is harmonious to adjoining properties. Furthermore, the proposed garden walls and retaining walls would not be easily visible from neighboring properties as the applicant is proposing to blend the man- made slopes surrounding the motor court with the existing natural topography and slopes found on the site. As such, this finding can be adopted. c) The third finding is that approval of the grading permit will not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. The surrounding neighborhood consists of hillside properties that were graded, utilizing retaining walls that support transitional slopes between properties that are typical for tract developments. The subject property is a pad lot with an extreme slope between the public right-of-way (Knoll View) and the flat pad portion of the lot, whereby shared, private driveway easements are utilized to accommodate access to multiple residences. Additionally, most other properties with similar site conditions and configurations have maintained the downslope in the front yard, utilizing stairs and walkway bridges to access the front of each residence. Therefore, as redesigned, proposed grading that slightly deviates from the grading criterion will support the construction of the two-story residence that accommodates access from a private driveway easement along the north side of the property, similar to other homes in the immediate neighborhood, and this finding can be adopted. d) The final finding is that departures from the standards will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property. The City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and approved a soil engineering report for the grading and retaining walls associated with the revised project. Furthermore, the City, Case No. ZON2011-00280 ,. ,V, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahani December 9, 2014 prior to issuance of building permits, requires that the structure and all retaining walls be engineered to meet the requirements of the building code. These aforementioned requirements are placed on all structures, regardless of the deviations in the grading standards. Further, deviation from the standards would allow the property owner the ability to provide access to a garage from the private driveway easements, similar to and compatible with the design of other homes found within the immediate neighborhood. As such, deviating from the standards does not alter the City's review of the structural aspect of the structure and the proposed grading. With these provisions, the proposed deviations will not cause a detrimental impact to public safety and/or other properties in the vicinity of the project. As such, this finding can be adopted. e) Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. If the Planning Commission approves the revised project and deviations from the grading standards, Staff would send a copy of the Notice of Decision and associated Resolution to the following property owners: 1) 29840 Knoll View Dr., 2) 29844 Knoll View Dr., 3) 29848 Knoll View Dr., 4) 29866 Knoll View Dr., 5) 2957 Knoll View Dr., and 29845 Knoll View Dr. Based on the above and past analyses, Staff believes that all the grading findings can be made, including the findings for grading which is in excess of that normally permissible grading under subsection (E)(9) of Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Foliage Maintenance (Condition No. 24) During the December 2013 and February 2014 public hearings, some concerns regarding the existing foliage that lines the north property line were discussed. Specifically, some neighbors felt that the existing foliage is an asset and would help to screen views of the new residence as seen from the private driveway easement. As a result, at the February 2014 meeting, the applicant noted that they were amenable to maintaining the existing foliage. Therefore, Staff has added a condition of approval that requires the existing foliage along the north side property line to be maintained in a thriving manner. Should any foliage be damaged during the construction process, the applicant will be required to replace said foliage to the satisfaction of the Director. It should be noted that this condition only pertains to the foliage located on the subject property. Extreme Slope Permit & Site Plan Review Applications As noted in the December 1011 and February 11th Planning Commission Staff Reports (attached), this project also includes a request for an Extreme Slope Permit to allow the construction of a portion of an entry deck to extend 6-0" over an extreme slope. Additionally, other ancillary site improvements, such as a pool and spa, mechanical equipment, fences and pilasters continue to meet the requirements of the Development Code. As such, Staff continues to be able to make all the applicable findings for the Extreme Slope Permit and Site Plan Review applications, as previously noted. A-76 Case No. ZON2011-00280 ..d, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani December 9, 2014 Permit Streamlining Act Given that the applicant submitted a revised project for review, a new Permit Streamlining Act deadline was established. As the revised project was deemed complete for processing on October 30, 2014, the new Permit Streamlining Act decision deadline is December 29, 2014. As there are no additional Planning Commission meetings prior to the December 29, 2014 deadline, the Planning Commission is required to render a decision at the December 9, 2014 meeting, or request that the applicant grant a one-time 90 -day extension to the Permit Streamlining Act. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained in this report, Staff believes that the applicant has redesigned the project to minimize impacts related to bulk and mass by reducing the size of the project and providing extensive articulation of the front, rear and side facades of the residence. With the modifications to the design and size of the project, Staff is now able to make all the required findings related to a Height Variation. Similarly, given that the applicant has redesigned the project to provide vehicular access from a shared private driveway easement, as opposed to direct access from Knoll View Dr., the redesigned project and associated grading is necessary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and can recommend approval of the Grading Permit. Additionally, Staff can also recommend approval of the Extreme Slope Permit to allow a front entry deck to extend 6-0" over an extreme slope, and the Site Plan Review for all other ancillary site improvements. As such, the applicant has adequately addressed all of the Planning Commission's concerns related to grading and bulk and mass, and Staff recommend approval of the project as redesigned. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives available for consideration by the Planning Commission are: Direct the applicant to further re -design the project and continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting to a date certain (January 27, 2015). 2. Deny Case No. ZON2013-00063 and direct Staff to return with a revised resolution at the next Planning Commission meeting (January 13, 2015). ATTACHMENTS • P.C. Resolution No. 2014- • City Council Minutes from April 16, 2014 • City Council Staff Report from April 16, 2014 • Planning Commission Minutes from February 11, 2014 • P.0 Resolution No. 2014-07 (Denial) • Planning Commission Staff Report from February 11, 2014 • Planning Commission Minutes from December 10, 2013 • Planning Commission Staff Report from December 10, 2013 • Project Plans A-77 P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - (Approval) P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT, EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,870 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE, 213 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING, AN ENTRY DECK THAT EXTENDS A MAXIMUM OF 6'-0" OVER AN EXTREME SLOPE, AND OTHER ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT (APN 7566-006-018) (CASE NO. ZON2011-00280) WHEREAS, on April 21, 1965, Tract Map 27142 was recorded with the County of Los Angeles, thereby creating the subject property along with the other properties within the Miraleste Hills community; and, WHEREAS, on October 10, 2011, the applicant submitted a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application to the Community Development Department requesting approval of a new 6,105 square foot, two-story residence and garage on an existing vacant lot, including 762 cubic yards of grading; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2011, the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, after the submittal of additional information and revised plans reducing the scale of the project and grading, the applicant submitted the last remaining information on October 29, 2013 and November 1, 2013; and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, Staff deemed the project complete; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. At that time, the Planning Commission found that the proposed project was not compatible with the immediate neighborhood based on the bulk and mass of the proposed structure. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the proposed grading for the new driveway/motor court and courtyard was excessive. After the applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension to the Permit Streamlining Act, which established a new decision deadline of April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to February 11, 2014 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address the concerns raised by the Staff and the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised project, which involved a reduction in the square footage of the residence from 5,597 square feet to 5,203 square feet, reduced amount of overall grading from 712 cubic yards to 466 cubic yards, increased side and rear yard setbacks, and the submittal of an Extreme Slope Permit for a deck to extend over an extreme slope in the front yard of project site. While the applicant attempted to address some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission, the proposed project continued to result in excessive grading and was not compatible with the neighborhood. A-79 As such, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-07, denying, without prejudice, the application request, on a 3 to 1 vote with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, and Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin, and Chairman Emenhiser absent; and, WHEREAS, On February 26, 2014, the applicant (Amir Esfahani) appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council requesting another opportunity to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns. Given the applicant's desire to further modify the project, the City Council, at its April 16, 2014 meeting, remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration; and, WHEREAS, in July and October 2014, revised plans (including an updated geotechnical report) were submitted to the City further reducing the overall size of the project, providing additional setbacks and articulation to the two-story structure, and eliminating the direct access driveway from Knoll View Dr., thereby providing access to the property via a private driveway easement adjacent to the north property line of the subject property. WHEREAS, on October 30, 2014, the revised project was deemed complete for processing; and, WHEREAS, on November 6, 2014, a 30 -day public notice for the revised project was sent to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 6, 2014; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. Seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. Seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that ZON2011-00280 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303) since the project involves construction of a new residence on a legally subdivided residential lot; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a Height Variation to allow the construction of a 4,870 square foot two-story residence: A. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process established by the City, and as directed by the Community Development Director, by mailing reduced copies of the project plans and a notice to all landowners within 500 feet of the subject property via registered mail. B. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 2 of 12 major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails), which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as City -designated viewing areas. Specifically, due to the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structure is not visible from a public viewing area or viewing site and will therefore, not impair a view. C. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject property is located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood, on an existing pad lot, zoned for residential development. The residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Municipal Code. D. The Height Variation is warranted because the portions of the new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, will not significantly impair City -protected views from the viewing areas of neighboring properties. Specifically, properties in the neighborhood which overlook the subject property are at a significantly higher elevation than the pad level of the subject lot, allowing protected viewing areas to continue to have unobstructed views over the proposed new residence and will only block the views of residences or buildings and foliage located down the hillside, which are not protected views. E. The Height Variation is warranted because proposed portions of the new residence that exceed sixteen feet in height are designed to minimize the impairment of a view, as the proposed residence is situated as close to the front of the lot as possible with the current design and at a significantly lower elevation, which allows a better angle over the proposed residence from the upslope neighboring properties. F. The Height Variation is warranted because granting the application would not cause significant cumulative view impairment, as the adjacent parcels located on the same downslope side as the subject parcel have also been constructed with 2 -story residences on a pad level that appears to be at the relatively same elevation as the subject lot. G. The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements, including the RS -2 zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage, property line setbacks, landscaping, and the required garage size for single-family residences that exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. H. The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed residence, as redesigned is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Specifically, the applicant has redesigned the project to provide undulating facades and articulation around all sides of the residence. Additionally, the applicant has redesigned the proposed driveway to take access from a private driveway easement to along the north side of the residence, which is compatible with other residences found along the east side of Knoll View Dr. Furthermore, the proposed project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style and bulk and mass. The proposed lot coverage and setbacks are consistent with those of the P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 3 of 12 • surrounding properties. The Height Variation is warranted because the portion of the structure above 16 feet will not result in unreasonable infringement of privacy of the abutting residences. Specifically, the adjacent parcel's privacy will not be impacted any differently than what is already experienced, as each of the properties can be seen from Knoll View Drive over the currently vacant subject lot and the view onto the adjacent lots from proposed 2Id_ story windows, balconies and decks the will not be different from what is currently observed from the street. Section 2: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the Grading Permit to allow 213 cubic yards of cut and fill A. The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The subject property is located in a residential area designated by the City's Zoning Map as a RS -2 Zoning District. According to the City's General Plan and Development Code, a single family residence is classified as a permitted primary use in the RS Zoning District. As redesigned, the applicant is proposing a total of 213 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the construction of the new residence and ancillary site improvements. Of the total proposed grading, 160 cubic yards of fill is proposed to accommodate the new driveway/motor court, and 10 cubic yards of fill is proposed to shift the natural grade of the property along the south side of the motor court. The remaining grading accommodates a new pool, a level rear yard and a landing for pedestrian access from Knoll View Dr. Additionally, the applicant has utilized the private driveway to access the new residence without significantly altering the desired function of the home. Given the steep slopes that descend from the private driveway to the proposed garage, the retaining walls and fill to accommodate access to the garage will not be apparent from neighboring properties. B. The proposed grading/retaining wall would not cause any significant/adverse visual impacts to other neighboring properties as the proposed retaining wall would not be easily visible from other properties as it will face the interior of the lot. Furthermore, a small portion of the wall that may be slightly visible from the right-of-way will be screened by the landscaping in a planter. C. The grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The existing vacant lot was originally created as part of Tract 27142, with an extreme slope between the street and flat portion of the pad lot. Other neighboring lots east of the Knoll View Dr. exhibit similar topographic configurations, with vehicular access accommodated along shared private driveways that extend eastward from Knoll View Dr. The applicant has significantly reduced the scale of grading to accommodate access from the shared private driveway, as opposed to providing access directly off of Knoll View. As a result, a limited amount of grading (160 cubic yards of fill) is proposed to accommodate the new motor court and access to the garage. Given that a portion of this motor court extends into the existing slope, and would otherwise result in a large retaining wall, the applicant has redirected the contours of the property in a small P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 4 of 12 • portion of the property just south of the motor court. The modified contours would be blended to follow the existing slope and the finished contours are reasonably natural as seen from Knoll View Dr 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. A majority of the proposed project will be located on the existing flat pad of the property with some minor grading in the rear yard to accommodate a new pool and flat, useable rear yard. The majority of the proposed grading would be located along the northwestern side of the new residence and would accommodate the construction of a motor court and access from a private driveway easement to the proposed garage. Given that the property descends approximately 9'-0" from the private easement to the flat pad of the property, the applicant is proposing to raise the finished floor of the garage and fill beneath the motor court to accommodate a raised driveway that accesses the garage. As seen from the private driveway easement and properties to the north, the new driveway on the subject property will appear to be at similar grade elevations as the private driveway easement. The applicant will be maintaining a majority of the extreme slope along the west side of the property, similar to other properties along the east side of Knoll View Dr. Additionally, in order to reduce potential impacts of a raised driveway, the applicant has blended the existing site topography with a man-made slope along the south side of the motor court. E. The grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The redesigned project addresses past concerns related to bulk and mass by providing undulating facades and additional articulation to the first and second floor facades. Additionally, the applicant has redesigned the project to address the grading concerns related to the construction of the new residence by eliminating the direct access driveway from Knoll View, as the Planning Commission found that a direct access driveway was incompatible with the neighborhood. In order to address this concern, the applicant provided access from a legal, private driveway along the north side of the property. This modified access accommodates a design that is compatible with the immediate neighborhood as most of the homes along the east side of Knoll View Dr. are accessed from private driveway easements that extend eastward from Knoll View Dr. F. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. The applicant has redesigned the project to eliminate driveway access from Knoll View. Instead, similar to other homes along the east side of Knoll View Dr. the applicant has provided access to the property via a legal, private driveway that extends eastward from Knoll View Dr., along the north side of the property. Therefore, as redesigned, the applicant is no longer altering the street design of Knoll View Dr. and is proposing a design that eliminates grading between the existing extreme slope along Knoll View and flat pad portion of the property, and minimizes grading that provides access to the residence along the private driveway, thereby keeping in character of the hillside properties along Knoll View Dr. P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 5 of 12 • G. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property. H. The grading conforms to the City's standards for height of cut and fill, and heights of retaining walls. Specifically, the proposed grading would not occur on a lot that was created prior to 1975, the proposed grading will not significantly alter the contours of the lot and no finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created. Lastly, the project includes one (1) 3'-5" tall upslope retaining wall and one (1) 3'-0" tall downslope retaining wall. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed grading on a slope with a 60% gradient, is permitted due to the following facts: 1) the first eight grading criterion have been met, 2) the request is consistent with the purpose of the Municipal Code, 3) approval of the grading permit will not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity, 4) departures from the standards of the grading criterion will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property. J. A required Notice of Decision will be given to the applicant and to all owners of property located adjacent to the subject property. Specifically, a Notice of Decision will be given to the following people: 1) 29840 Knoll View Dr., 2) 29844 Knoll View Dr., 3) 29848 Knoll View Dr., 4) 29866 Knoll View Dr., 5) 2957 Knoll View Dr., and 29845 Knoll View Dr. Section 3: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the Extreme Slope Permit to allow a portion of an entry deck in the front yard to extend a maximum of 6 -feet beyond the toe of an extreme slope: B. The Extreme Slope Permit can be supported because the site cannot reasonably accommodate the structure except on an extreme slope because a large portion of the front yard is comprised of an extreme slope and there is a limited amount of useable front yard area to provide access from the street to the residence. Specifically, the subject property is situated where the pad level of the property is located approximately 20 feet below of the street level, with an extreme slope descending from the street to the pad portion of the lot. In order to provide access to the front of the residence, which has been designed with the main public rooms on the upper level, the proposed walkway bridge over a portion of the extreme slope allows a walkway and usable front yard structure that would connect to steps carved into the slope and up to the street. Due to the design of the project, which is located at the toe of the extreme slope, any manner of providing access to the front of the property would involve going over the extreme slope. The site cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed walkway bridge without encroaching over the extreme slope. C. The Extreme Slope Permit will result in no significant adverse effect on neighboring properties in terms of view impairment, visual impact, slope instability, increased runoff and other adverse impact. The proposed walkway bridgbe/deck will be located at the front of the residence, between the proposed new structure and the street. As the P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 6 of 12 F.111969115 extreme slope descends down to the residence, resulting in a valley -like space between the structure and the public right-of-way, there will be no adverse effects to neighboring properties. The sunken location of the deck will not be in any viewing area though it can be seen from the street, similar to other deck structures found on adjacent properties to provide access to the front of the residence. Furthermore, the deck would be required to obtain all building permits that comply with geological and building code requirements that will address any potential slope stability and/or drainage issues in conjunction with approval with the new residence. C. The Extreme Slope Permit can be supported because the walkway bridge/deck is located at the front of the property and a lower elevation from the street. Due to its location adjacent to the public right-of-way, at a lower elevation from the street, and located 27 feet from the adjacent property to the south Staff believes the deck would not result in any infringement of privacy more than can be observed from the street. Therefore, Staff believes this finding can be made D. The Extreme Slope Permit can be supported because any disturbance to the slope will be insignificant. As designed, there would be four pillars supporting the deck, of which only two will be located on the slope. The deck would then connect to a retaining wall where fill is proposed for a small flat area which would then fill the gap between where the deck ends and the stairs built into the slope. While there will be a 91 square foot area to provide the graded platform for the deck and slope, any disturbance caused by the proposed deck cantilevering over the slope will be insignificant. K. The Extreme Slope Permit can be supported because the General Plan designates the subject parcel for Residential 1-2 DU/acre, and the proposed deck is consistent with construction for residential development. The purpose of the Residential, 1-2 DU/acre land use designation in the General Plan is to allow for the development of low- to moderate -density residential neighborhoods, including the types of accessory structures normally associated with single-family residences, such as the proposed deck. In addition, Urban Environment Policy No. 3 calls upon the City to "encourage and assistin the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design." The extreme slope at the front of the residence restricts access to the front of the residence to where the use of a cantilevered deck is both reasonable and consistent with the immediate neighborhood. Also, the subject parcel is not located within the City's Coastal Zone, nor is it subject to any overlay control district standards. Section 4: With regard to the Site Plan Review, the proposed pool, spa, mechanical equipment and site fencing would comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and the maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS -2 zone. Further, as noted in the Height Variation findings above, the addition will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Section 5: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 7 of 12 • any specific action being requested by the appellant. The standard fifteen (15) day appeal period shall be extended due to the closure of City Hall between December 24, 2014 and January 1, 2015. Any appeal letter must be filed by 4:30 PM, Friday, January 2, 2015. A $2,275 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 4:30 PM on January 2, 2015. Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope Permit and Site Plan Review (Planning Case No. ZON2011-00280) for the construction of a new 4,870 square foot, two-story residence with 213 cubic yards of grading and an entry deck that extends 6'-0" beyond the toe of an extreme lop located on a vacant lot with an APN of 7566-006-018, subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit 'A'. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9t" day of December 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSSALS: ABSENT: Gordon Leon Chairman Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director Secretary to the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 8 of 12 � i� EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, ESP, SPR) (APN 7566-006-018.) General Conditions: Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 7. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 9 of 12 • requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 10, 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (38.7% proposed). 14. The approved additions shall maintain setbacks as depicted on the APPROVED plans for both the first and second floor additions. BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 15. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 16 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 (3 -car garage proposed). P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 10 of 12 17. 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. 18. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 19. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 20. 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. Project Specific Conditions: 21. This approval is for a 4,870 square -foot, 2 -story single-family residence, which includes a 649 square -foot 3 -car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. 22. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 105.5'. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the Finished Grade Elevation at 79.5'. 23. 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. 24. All existing foliage located along the north side property line, adjacent to the private driveway easement, shall be maintained in a thriving manner. Should these trees be damaged during construction, the applicant shall provide new trees to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 25. No grading or improvement may commence within the private road easement to the north of the subject property without first obtaining written authorization from the legal holders of the private driveway easement to allow proposed grading and improvements within the private street easement. Such authorization shall be in a form that can be P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 11 of 12 recorded and shall be reviewed by the City Attorney. If written authorization from the easement holders is not obtained, the plans shall be modified to eliminate improvements from the private driveway easement. Said modified plan may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Condition No. 4. 26. This project includes two retaining walls located adjacent to the proposed new driveway that will not exceed a height of 3'-5". 27. The proposed project includes a total of 213 cubic yards of grading as itemized below: • 27 cubic yards of cut for a new pool and spa • 160 cubic yards of fill for the construction of a new driveway + 10 cubic yards of fill along the southwest side of the new driveway • 7 cubic yards of fill for a pedestrian landing in the front yard • 9 cubic yards of fill in the rear yard to the west of the new pool P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 12 of 12 City Council Minutes (April 15, 2014 meeting) A-91 The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brooks, Campbell, Knight, Misetich, and Mayor Duhovic NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: Appeal of a Grading, Height Variation, and Extreme Slope Permit for a New Residence on a Vacant Property (Case No. ZON2011-00280) Location: [Lot 7 of Tract 27142 on Knoll View Drive] City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published, no written protests were received, and there were no requests to speak regarding this item. Mayor Duhovic declared the public hearing open. Councilman Misetich disclosed that he lives on Knoll View Drive, but not within 500 feet of the project and noted that he has no line of sight to the project. He added that he discussed the matter with City Attorney Lynch and it was determined that he has no conflict of interest and can participate in this item. By acclamation, the staff report was waived. Discussion ensued among Council Members, As there were no requests to speak, Mayor Duhovic declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Pro Tem Knight moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to approve staff recommendation to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration without an appeal fee refund, as requested by the appellant. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brooks, Campbell, Knight, Misetich, and Mayor Duhovic NOES: None ABSENT: None Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) and Code Amendment for the Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions / Location: "Zone 2" of the City's Landslide Moratorium Area City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published, written protests were included in the staff report and late correspondence distributed prior to City Council Minutes April 15, 2014 Page 9 of 14 A-92 City Council Staff Report (April 15, 2014 meeting) A-93 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, AICP, COMMUNITY DEV PMENT DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 15, 2014 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A GRADING, HEIGHT VARIATION, AND EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE ON A VACANT PROPERTY (CASE NO. ZON2011-00280).]j REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER— Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION As requested by the appellant, remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration without an appeal fee refund. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2011, an application was submitted requesting approval of a Height Variation, Grading and Site Plan Review permit for the construction of a new 2 -story single- family residence and garage on an existing vacant lot, including grading for the creation of a new driveway, motor court, and front yard area, along with accessory structures in the rear yard area. After multiple revisions were made to the project, the application was deemed complete on November 4, 2013. On December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission found that the new residence was not compatible with the neighborhood based on the proposed structure's bulk and mass. The Commission also found that the proposed grading for the new driveway, motor court and courtyard was excessive. After the applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension, which established a new decision deadline of April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on this item to February 11, 2014, to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project and address the concerns raised by Staff and the Commission at the public hearing. On February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised project, which involved a reduction in the square footage of the residence, reduced amount of overall City Council Meeting - Appeal of Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani April 15, 2014 grading, and increased side and rear yard setbacks. While the applicant attempted to address some of the concerns, the proposed project continued to result in excessive grading and was not compatible with the neighborhood. As such, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-07, denying without prejudice the application request, on a 3 to 1 vote with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, and Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin, and Chairman Emenhiser absent. On February 26, 2014, the applicant (Amir Esfahan!) appealed the Planning Commission's decision requesting that the City Council provide another opportunity for the applicant to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns. DISCUSSION A complete description of the proposed revised project and Staffs analysis of the required findings can be found in the attached Planning Commission Staff Reports (February 11, 2014 and December 10, 2013). Additionally, the Planning Commission minutes from the previous public hearings are attached. A summary of the project description, the Planning Commission's decision and the applicant's appeal is described below. Proposed Project The proposed project that the Planning Commission denied was for the construction of a new 5,203 square foot, 2 -story single-family residence, 3 -car garage and pool/spa in the rear yard. To accommodate the new residence and a direct driveway access off Knoll View Drive, the project involved 466 cubic yards of total associated grading. Planning Commission's Decision In reviewing the project application as originally proposed, the Planning Commission raised a couple concerns. There was a concern for the amount of bulk and mass of the proposed new residence being out of scale with the other residences in the neighborhood. There was also a concern with the amount of proposed grading for the new driveway and motor court both out of character and excessive due to an existing driveway easement running along the side of the subject lot which could provide access to the subject lot. At a continued public hearing, the applicant proposed a revised project that reduced the size of the proposed residence from a 5,597 square feet to 5,203 square feet, reduced the amount of grading from 762 cubic yards to 466 cubic yards, and increased the amount of space between the new structure and the side and rear property lines. However, the consensus of the Planning Commission was that although the project was revised, more revisions were needed to adequately address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding bulk and mass and excessive grading, and therefore the application was denied without prejudice. City Council Meeting - Appeal of Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahan! April 15, 2014 Appellant's Grounds for Appeal On February 26, 2014, the applicant submitted an appeal letter (attached) along with a revised set of plans. In the appeal letter, the applicant/appellant explains that he plans to re- design that the project specifically to address the Planning Commission's issues related to grading. With these changes, the applicant/appellant feels that the Planning Commission's remaining concerns can be addressed. As such, the applicantlappellant is requesting that the City Council refer the project back to the Planning Commission for additional review. After conducting a preliminary review of the revised plans, while Staff continues to have some conperns, Staff believes that the revised proposed project may address the Planning Commission's concerns. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the City Council remand the project back to the Planning Commission for review as requested by the applicant. FISCAL IMPACT In filing an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision the appellant paid a $2,275 appeal fee. According to Municipal Code Section 17.80.110, all appeal fees are refunded to an appellant if "a final decision is rendered granting his/her appeal." While Staff is agreeing with the appellant's request that the revised project be remanded back to the Planning Commission, Staff does not believe the appellant is entitled to a refund of the appeal fee since the applicant has revised his plans and is not requesting the Council to render a final decision on the proposed project. On the contrary, the applicant is requesting an opportunity to have his revised project reviewed by the Planning Commission without having to file a new application fee and therefore saving the applicant $11,696 in application fees. Notwithstanding the appeal fee received by the City, there would be some fiscal impact to the City by remanding the project back to the Planning Commission as Staff would process the revised project to the Planning Commission without the $11,696 refiling fee required to pursue a new application. ALTERNATIVES According to Municipal Code Section 17.80.080, the City Council may take the following actions in addition to Staffs recommendation: Deny the application without prejudice. Given that the appellant is not requesting the City Council to act on the application, but is instead requesting that a revision to the project denied by the Planning Commission be remanded back to the Planning Commission for additional review, the Council could elect to deny the appeal without prejudice and require the appellant to file a new application with new application fees that would subsequently be heard by the Planning Commission. This action would uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the original project without prejudice. As such, none of the $2,275 appeal fee will be refunded and the applicant would be required to refile the application with a standard filing fee of $11,696. City Council Meeting - Appeal of Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahan! April 15, 2014 2. Decide to act on the revised project. If this alternative is selected, Staff would recommend that the Council direct Staff to complete a full analysis of the revised project and return to the City Council with appropriate findings at the next available meeting for review. If the City Council grants approval of a modified project, half of the appeal fee ($1,137.50) would be refunded to the appellant. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Notification A public notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed out to all property owners who owned property within a 500 foot radius of the subject site and interested parties on March 12, 2014. Additionally, the notice was published in the Palos Vermes Newspaperon March 13, 2014. No comments have been received at the writing of this report. CONCLUSION Staff is recommending that the City Council remand the revised project back to the Planning Commission for review, as the applicantlappellant is proposing a revised project that is intended to directly address the Planning Commission's concerns associated with the project. Attachment: • Appeal letter from Amir Esfahani (applicant) • P.C. Minutes from February 11, 2014 • P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07 • P.C. Staff Report from February 11, 2014 • P.C. Minutes from December 10, 2013 • P.C. Staff Report from December 10, 2013 �i • Appeal letter from Amir Esfahani (applicant) 2/26/14 City Of Rancho Palos Verdes Attn: Abigail Harwell, Associate Planner 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: CASE NO. ZON2011-00280 APN 7666-006-018 Ms. Harwell, Rftwpa, FEB 6 ,?og COMMUNITY DEVEl.0pMLNT "I"Ai4'I?t Wr I would like to appeal the planning commission decision for my proposed home on Knoll View Drive. I believe I was close to an approval, so I ask that the City Council allow me an opportunity to redesign this project. At the time of the meeting I was not offered a continuance to modify the plans. As you can see by the attached plans, I have addressed the issues raised by the commission and staff, mainly the grading quantities. I have included the new grading quantities below. Driveway and Motor Court radin Quantitie 123 yard Garage 28 Yards Fill 151 yards Previous Application Fill 360 Yards Current Cut 106 yards same as before While the attached plan is rough, I hope to specifically address all the issues in the final redesign. We would like to request that the city council refer the revised plan back to planning commission for review. I appreciate your attention to the matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me through any of the communication avenues below. Sincerely, L_: 'r J Amir Esfahani 310-766-2543 amir.e.esfahani@gmail.com Planning Commission Minutes (February 11, 2014 meeting) A-100 ho Palos Verdes Mayor Marilyn Lyon, who is wit Council of GovWMtrfe4a,.introduced Ron Wil est Basin Municipal Water District, who gave a presen conservation. ■ ■..iN19� FFITI CONTIPIUED BUSINESS 2. Hel ht Variation Grading Permit, and Extreme Slope Permit Case No. ZON2011 d►tt280) Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project, explaining the scope of the new proposed project, and comparing the new project with the previously proposed project. She noted staff continues to not be able to make the findings to support the Grading Permit, as staff feels the grading associated with the new driveway and motor court is excessive due to the presence of an existing driveway that can access the property. She also explained that, while the project size has been reduced and the side and rear setbacks have been increased, staff still cannot support the neighborhood compatibility of the project due to the bulk and mass of the structure. She also explained that due to an existing driveway which the applicant is able to use as well as an opening between the foliage to allow access, staff believes the project could be redesigned to use this access point, thereby significantly reducing the amount of overall grading needed and eliminating proposed eleven foot tall retaining walls on an extreme slope. She stated staff is recommending denial of the project as proposed. Commissioner Lewis stated he was absent from the meeting when this project was originally heard, however he has reviewed the minutes and feels he can participate in this matter. He asked staff what the applicant's response was when staff suggested using the existing driveway. Assistant Planner Harwell stated the applicant felt it was more advantageous to have their own driveway rather than use the shared driveway. She noted the applicant was in the audience to further elaborate if necessary. Vice Chairman Leon asked staff if the applicant was notified of staffs concerns when -the first application was submitted. Director Rojas explained when staff first met with the applicant the access to the property was proposed directly from Knoll View Drive because the applicant informed staff that they did not have access rights to the property from the existing shared driveway. Because of that, staff was generally supportive of the proposed grading involved with the access since the applicant had no choice. However, the City Attorney reviewed the easement language and noted the applicant does have legal access' rights via the existing driveway. With that information, staff changed its position in terms of Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2014 Page 2 A-101 supporting the grading to gain access to the property when there is already access via the existing driveway, which would involve no grading. He noted however, that for the type of design the applicant is seeking, they would have to make major modifications to the existing driveway, which the neighbors are objecting to, Vice Chairman Leon asked if the driveway easement is on the adjoining property. Director Rojas answered that the easement is on the adjoining property, adding that while the easement allows the applicant access to his lot, the applicant's concern is that using said access driveway will not allow him to build what he feels is best for the lot. Vice Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Ben Cauthen (project designer) gave an overview of all of the changes that have been made, which included revisions to address the neighbor's privacy concerns, reducing the square footage of the project, and moving the swimming pool to the other side of the property. He explained that the grading involved with the new proposed driveway and motor court area is only 306 cubic yards of grading, which he did not feel was excessive. He also noted that, in reality, when this house is built there will be no import of dirt as the dirt being cut for the footings to build the house will be used as the fill for the motor court. He explained the real advantage of the motor court is safety. He pointed out the current driveway is only 10 to 12 feet wide and is currently shared by two other homes. The motor court will give privacy to the homeowner and his children can play in the motor court area. In addition, the motor court will increase the value of the applicant's home, as it brings the living space to the upper level where there are views. Amir Esfahanl (owner) explained the characteristics of the shared .driveway easement, noting the slope is equal or greater than 20 percent, and reiterating the safety issues. He showed pictures of the current easement damage, noting the damage will only get worse with the construction. Finally, he showed an image of the north elevation with the existing trees which he felt will mask any bulk or mass issues the Commission may have with the residence. Marshall Esfahanl also discussed the driveway easement and the steep 20 percent slope and the issues created by that steep slope. He felt the easement was outdated, as it was probably done when the City was incorporated, and they should be allowed to build the new motor court. He also noted that the trees on the neighboring property will not be disturbed in any way, which Is important to the neighbor. Chris Leventis stated he has been hired by the owner to speak on the grading that will be performed on the property. He explained that he normally works on projects where he moves 2,000 yards of dirt per day, therefore a project like this with only 466 yards of dirt is quite minimal. He explained that when digging the foundations that will generate almost 250 yards of dirt which will be used on the property, and therefore no import will be needed. Planning Commlesion Minutes February 11, 2014 Page 3 A-102 Vice Chairman Leon asked Mr. Leventis If he will be using the easement to get his equipment in and out of the property. Mr. Leventis answered he will come off the street and down the slope onto the property. Steven Mardani stated he is one of the neighbors on the flag lot. He stated he has three children who play on the driveway, and he agrees with the Esfahanis that in order for everyone to be safe he would prefer they build their own driveway and have separate access to their property. However, he also stated he has no objection to the Esfahanis use of the driveway. Vice Chairman Leon asked Mr. Mardani if he has reviewed the plans, and !f so, are there any issues with respect to the mass and bulk of the proposed house. Mr. Mardani answered that he can barely see the house from his property, as his house is much lower than theirs. He did feel that a larger house will raise the value of his home. Marshall Rutter stated he is an attorney representing the owner of the house referred to as the Sorenson residence, which is immediately adjacent to the east of the applicant's property. He discussed his concern with the size of the proposed residence, and felt the Esfahan! residence is a mcmansion that will start a creep of that type of development in the neighborhood. He also felt the size overwhelms the Sorenson home and will tower over them. Their view to the west will also be obstructed by the residence. He discussed the driveway, and stated the Sorensons have no objection to the Esfahanis using the easement. He pointed to what he felt was a drainage swale on the property which he stated is essential to drainage, and noted that Mr. Esfahani Intends to cover this area. He was very concerned that the drainage Issue will be a very serious issue with the flooding that could result. Raju Chhaboa felt having a private driveway was the most prudent thing to do, allowing the owner a private entrance and increasing safety on the existing driveway easement. M,amhall Esfahan (in rebuttal) stating the drainage is not in his plan, and the City Engineer will make sure all drainage Is safe. In response to the mcmansion statement, he felt that there is quite a bit of open space on the property and he did not think this -could be considered a mcmansion. He understood the concerns of the neighbors, as this area hasn't changed for many years and the construction may cause a temporary inconvenience. However, he noted the owners will be excellent neighbors and an asset to the neighborhood and community. Tamara Vallmer noted her house, which is next door to the subject lot. She pointed to a large house behind the subject lot which she said is a 5,300 square foot house on a 24,000 square foot lot and the applicant is proposing to build a 5,600 square foot house Planning Commisslon Minutes February 11, 2014 Page 4 A-103 on a 15,000 square foot lot. She stated the applicant's house will be double of almost every house in the neighborhood on an average size lot. Commissioner Lewis asked Ms. Vallmer if she had any opinion on the use of the existing driveway easement as opposed to the proposed private driveway. Ms. Vallmer answered that she did not have an issue with the private driveway, but could not understand how the applicant could use that area as a driveway as the hillside is very steep. Pen Cauthen (in rebuttal) stated that if the house across the street is 5,000 square feet on a 24,000 square foot lot, that would equate to a 4.8 FAR, while the applicant's house would be a 4,500 square foot house which is a 3.3 FAR. Commissioner Lewis noted the Clty does not consider floor area ratios. He asked Mr. Cauthen that if the Commission were to approve the project, if the applicant would consider a condition regarding the existing trees and landscaping. Mr. Cauthen answered that the applicant would agree to such a condition. Vice Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff what the slope of the proposed driveway would be. Assistant Planner Harwell answered of the proposed driveway would be at a 15 percent slope. Commissioner Nelson asked staff to clarify the issues with the drainage swale. Assistant Planner Harwell read a note on the plans which states that the existing swale Is to be replaced with underground drainage to be connected to the City's storm sewer. She stated that this will be reviewed by Building and Safety during the plan check process. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the Grading Permit application, and noted staff could not make six of the required nine findings in order to recommend approval. He asked staff to explain why there are these nine criteria that must be approved before the City will allow grading on an extreme slope. Assistant Planner Harwell explained that the idea of the requirements is to help preserve hillsides, as the City is considered a hillside community and the hillsides have already been established in certain patters throughout the City. The criteria was established to minimize the amount of grading to the slopes in order to preserve the topographic integrity of the neighborhood. Specifically, these findings were made in this case in relationship to the driveway and motor court, as staff believes there is another way to access the lot that does not involve the proposed grading and preserves the Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2014 Page 6 A-104 extreme slope hillside that other properties in the neighborhood have maintained. She also noted that retaining wails would have to be built to build up the pad for the motor court, and staff could not make the necessary findings for the excessive height based upon the grading criteria. Commissioner Lewis asked If these grading criteria were optional, or if all must be met. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that all of the findings must be made in order to approve a Grading Application. Commissioner Lewis stated he agrees with staffs report in its entirety and also could not make the findings in terms of neighborhood compatibility. He stated that in looking at the south and west elevations, this is a massive project. In terms of compatibility with the neighborhood, he could not support a 5,200 square foot house on a 15,000 square foot lot, given the comparable properties in the neighborhood. Commissioner Lewis moved to deny the project without prejudice, as recommended by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he agrees with Commissioner Lewis' comments, as he also could not make the necessary findings in terms of grading and bulk and mass of the project. Commissioner Nelson disagreed, and felt the project should be approved as presented. He felt the applicant has done a good job in responding to the Commission's concerns. Vice Chairman Leon was also concerned with the bulk and mass of the project. In terms of the driveway and the grading, he felt that the motor court would be sufficiently screened so that it would not make a difference if it was or was not there. However, because of the serious neighborhood compatibility issue with the surrounding homes he was not able to support the project. The motion to deny the project without prejudice, as recommended by staff, was approved and PC Resolution 2014-07 was adopted, (3-1) with Commissioner Nelson dissenting. -.00 — (Case No. ZON2013-00410); 282213rK'FUoad Associate Planner Mikhail pre-s�Ti'tbeMi explaining the scope of the project and noted that the skylights are bef ' because they exceed the ridgeline of the residence. wined the two finding st be made in order to approve the skyli stated that staff was able to make these s. V4wrt birman Leon opened the public hearing. Planning commission Minutes February 11, 2014 Page 6 A-105 P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07 (Denial) A-106 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING AND EXTREME SLOPE FOR A NEW 5,203 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH A TOTAL OF 466 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING, ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT (APN 7666006-018) (CASE NO. ZON2011- 00280). WHEREAS, on April 21, 1965, Tract Map 27142 was recorded with the County of Los Angeles, thereby creating the subject property along with the other properties within the Miraleste Hills community, and, WHEREAS, on October 10, 2011, an application was submitted requesting Height Variation, Grading and Site Plan Review approval for the construction of a new 6,105 square foot, 2 -story single-family residence and garage on the existing vacant lot, including 762 cubic yards of grading; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2011, the application was deemed incomplete; and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2013, Staff deemed the project complete after the submittal of additional information and revised plans reducing the scale of the project and proposed grading on October 29, 2013 and November 1, 2013; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. Seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. Seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(1) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that ZON2011-00280 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303) since the project involves the construction of a new residence on a legally subdivided lot; and, WHEREAS, on November 7, 2013, a notice was published and mailed pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, the applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension to the decision deadline and the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to February 11, 2014; thereby allowing the applicant additional time to address concerns related to bulk and mass, grading and neighborhood compatibility; and, WHEREAS, on February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07 Page 1 of 4 A-107 Section 1: The proposed project is a request to construct a new 5,203 square foot, 2 -story residence, including a 649 square foot 3 -car garage, involving a total of 466 cubic yards of grading (106 CY of cut and 360 CY of fill) for the construction of a new driveway and motor court providing access directly off Knoll View Drive, leveling of the property, a new pool and spa in the rear yard, and retaining walls connecting a created small pad area to a new 454 square foot deck over an extreme slope in the front yard area. Section 2: The proposed grading is excessive for what is necessary for the lot, as fill is proposed on an existing extreme slope in the front yard area for a new driveway and motor court in the front yard area that is not commonly found in the surrounding area when there is sufficient usable flat area in the rear yard of the subject property and the availability of an existing driveway that provides access to the subject lot. Section 3: The proposed grading does not minimize disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are not reasonably natural, as the multiple retaining walls proposed for the new driveway, motor court and grading in the front yard area interrupt the natural contours of the front yard slope, which do not look to blend with the existing slope nor appear not to be similar to any other properties in the area. Section 4: The proposed grading does not take into account the preservation of natural topographic features, as the excessive amount of grade being added results in retaining walls that do not appear to be natural nor can be found on any of the neighboring properties with similar site conditions. Section 5: The proposed grading is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as there is an existing driveway which currently provides access to the pad level of the subject lot that would not require the construction of a new driveway and motor court, which were not found on any of the other similar lots along Knoll View Drive. Section 6: The proposed grading does not conform to the City's standards for grading on slopes, as the project would result in a maximum depth of fill over five feet in depth, grading on slopes over 50% steepness, more than one upslope retaining wall, a wall taller than 3.5' in the side yard, and more than one retaining wall adjacent to the driveway. The proposed grading cannot deviate from these criteria, as the proposed grading is not harmonious with the adjacent lands and does not maintain the visual continuity of the hillside community. Further, as there is an existing driveway that is able to provide access to the subject lot, the new driveway and motor court are not features commonly seen among other similar properties in the vicinity, which would be a grant of special privilege. Section 7: The applicant has compiled with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process established by the City, and as directed by the Community Development Director, by mailing reduced copies of the project plans and a notice to all landowners within 500 feet of the subject property via registered mail. Section 8: The Height Variation is warranted since the portions of the proposed new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height 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 City -designated viewing areas due to the topography in the area and the location of the subject property. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07 Page 2 of 4 A-108 Section 9: The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed new residence is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject property is located within a hillside community, on an existing pad lot and does not overlook any other single-family residences. The residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Municipal Code. Section 10: The Height Variation is warranted because the portions of the new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, will not significantly impair City -protected views from the viewing areas of neighboring properties. Specifically, properties in the neighborhood which overlook the subject property are at a significantly higher elevation than the pad level of the subject lot, allowing protected viewing areas to continue to have unobstructed views over the proposed new residence and will only block the views of residences or buildings and foliage located down the hillside, which are not protected views. Section 11: The Height Variation is warranted because proposed portions of the new residence that exceed sixteen feet In height are designed to minimize the impairment of a view, as the proposed residence is situated as close to the front of the lot as possible with the current design and at a significantly lower elevation, which allows a better angle over the proposed residence from the upslope neighboring properties Section 12: The Height Variation is warranted because granting the application would not cause significant cumulative view impairment, as the adjacent parcels located on the same downslope side as the subject parcel have also been constructed with 2 -story residences on a pad level that appears to be at the relatively same elevation as the subject lot. Section 13: The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements, including the RS -2 zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage, property line setbacks, landscaping, and the required garage size for single-family residences that exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. Section 14: The Height Variation is not warranted because the proposed new residence design and location is not compatible with the character of the Immediate neighborhood. More specifically, the size and scale of the proposed 2 -story residence appears much larger than the other sizes of residences in the immediate neighborhood, resulting In what appears to be a bulky and massive structure that is not compatible as seen from Knoll View Drive. Section 15: The Height Variation is warranted because the portion of the structure above 16 feet will not result in unreasonable infringement of privacy of the abutting residences. Specifically, the adjacent parcel's privacy will not be Impacted any differently than what is already experienced, as each of the properties can be seen from Knoll View Drive over the currently vacant subject lot and the view onto the adjacent lots from proposed 74 -story windows, balconies and decks the will not be different from what is currently observed from the street. Section 8: Any Interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday February 26, 2014. A $2,275 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on February 26, 2014. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07 Page 3 of 4 A-109 Section 9: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Reports, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, without prejudice, Case No. ZON2011-00280 for a Height Variation, Grading and Extreme Slope Permit. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of February 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Lewis and Tetreault, Vice Chairman Leon NOES: Commissioner Nelson RECUSALS: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Commissioners Gerstner and Tomblin, Chairman Emenhiser Joel Rojas, P Commudyy D velopmeirector; and, Secretary of a Planning Commission 7 David Emenhiser, Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_QZ_ Page 4of4 A-110 Planning Commission Staff Report (February 11, 2014) A-111 CrFy OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMM UNrrY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: RECQMMEN. DATt N CHAIRMAIN AND MEMBERk OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY LOPMENT DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 11, 2014 HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING, & EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2011-00280) Abigail Harwell, Assistard,Planner . Adopt Resolution No. 2014 --__,thereby denying without prejudice, the Height Variation, Grading, and Extreme Slope Permit (Case No. ZON2011-00280). BACKGROUND On October 10, 2011, an application was submitted requesting Height Variation, Grading and Site Plan Review approval for the construction of a new 2 -story single-family residence and garage on the existing vacant lot, including grading for the creation of a new driveway and front yard area, and accessory structures In the rear yard area. After revisions were made to the project the application was deemed complete on November 4, 2013. On December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing and agreed with the conclusion of the attached December 10, 2013 Staff Report that the new residence was not compatible with the neighborhood based on the purposed bulk and mass, and proposed grading from the new driveway, motor court and courtyard. More specifically, the Commission felt the project should be redesigned to address the bulk and mass of the project, there should be an increase to the rear yard setback to address view concerns, and that the use of the adjacent driveway easement be considered (minutes from the December 10, 2013 PC meeting are attached). After the applicant agreed to ,a 90 -day extension, which established a new decision deadline of April 3, :2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on this item to February 11, 2014, to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project and address the concerns raised by Staff and the Commission at the public hearing. Subsequently, on January 22, 2014, revised pians were submitted, which .reduced the .size of the project, increased the rear yard setback, and reduced the proposed grading by eliminating the front courtyard area and proposing a new 454 square foot deck at the front of the residence, extending over the front yard extreme slope. As a result, an Extreme Slope Permit application request has been added to the project analysis. DISCUSSION The chart on the following page summarizes the changes between the original proposed project and the revised project submitted to the City on January 22, 2014: A-112 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahanl February 11, 2014 Chart 1 — Com arson of the Original and Revised Project for Lot 7 Structura'Ske Ori i`na1; Pro ` 12110 Revised. P_ o" ' 2l11 Chan e7 Upper Level 3,077 SF 3,030 SF -47 SF Lower Level 1,837 SF 1,524 SF 313 SF Garage 683 SF 649 SF -34 SF Total S,697 SF 6,203 SF -394 $F Lot Coverage 40% 39:5°/0 -0.4% Cut 162 CY 106 CY -56 CY Fill 600 CY 3160 CY -240 CY Total 762 CY 466 CY -296 CY Setback _ Front 35'-10" 35'-10" 0 North Side T -t3" V -W +60 South Side 5'-0' &-8" + 1'-8' Rear 49-4' 46-5° + &-1' Staffs analysis of the revised project with regard to the previous Staff and Planning Commission's concerns with bulk and mass, setbacks, grading and neighborhood compatibility Is discussed.below. HEIGHT VARIATION FINDING.' Nelghborlw6d Compatibility When presented at the December 1.0th public hearing, Staff -was unable to make one of the required 9 Height Variation findings. Specifically related to neighborhood compatibility (finding #8), Staff noted that the proposed residence appeared large as seen from the adjacent properties as well as when driving along Knoll View Drive, appearing both wider and deeper than the other residences in the Immediate neighborhood. The Planning Commission commented that reducing the size of the proposed structure as well as increasing the property line setbacks would help in reducing the overall appearance of the structure's perceived bulk and mass. As shown in the chart above, the project has been revised to reduce both the size of the residence as well as slightly increasing the structure setbacks. Although there will still be large walls along the driveway easement along the northern side of the property, the revised project results in the rear of the proposed structure being slightly behind the rear fagade of the residence to the south. Additionally, the southern facade of the residence was modified so only 22 feet of the 60 foot span of the proposed residence measures 6'-6" from the southern property line, reducing the amount of bulk that Is built near the closest neighboring residence. The size of the proposed residence has been reduced from 5,597 to 5,203 square feet, a difference of 394 square feet. Table 1 on the following page compares the 20 -closest homes in the immediate neighborhood, as was used in the December 100, report, with the both the originally proposed project and the current revised project. A-113 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (WV, GR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahanl February 11, 2014 Table 1 - Comparison of Structure Sizes in the Immediate Neighborhood for Lot 7 MZ f ifilYf.)f� itY gwv $ Yc ,..�J • 4 .. 29806 Kroll View Drive 14:091 3,191 2 298J 5 Knoll View Drive 18,252 3,260 2 29816 Knoll View Drive 13,231 3,360 2 298.23 Knoll Yew Drigg 17,801 3,167 1 29826 Knoll Vier Drive 1765$ 3,642 2 29839 Knoll View Drive 15,857 2,790 1 29840 Knoll View Drive 15,680 3,320 2 29841 Knoll View Drive 24140 6,360 2 29W'Knoll ViewDrive 23'529 3.460 2 29845 Knoll View Drive 1.8,659 3,167 1 29848 Knoll View Drive 15 731 2,780 1 29857 Knoll View ;Drive 18,717 2,760 1 29.865 Knoll View Dr ve 16,126 2,980 2 29866 Knoll View Drive 11'.661 3,360 2 79868 Knoll Mew Drive 15,842 2,877 1 29870 Knoll View DdVe 37,680 3,740 2 29872 Knoll View Drive 16,766 2,335 1 29897 Knoll'View Drive 14P3 2,820 1 29830 Knoll VIOW Drive 14,012 3,460 1 29949 Knoll View Drive 15,170 2,830 1 AVERAGF- 1.7 i 3228 2 Lot 7 6n Knoll View Orlgihal Revised 15,35.1 5,597 2 5.205 .2 The bulk of this reduction Is from the lower level, with the removal of ai:313 square foot gaMe room and relocation of the staircase. The overall size has been reduced to be within the range of structure sizes in the immediate neighborhood, as the proposed 5,203 square foot new residence will be less than the existing largest residence listed at 5,360 square feet noted in the table above. Additionally, the overall structure footprint was slightly reduced, from 40% to 36.7°!x. However, in Staffs opinion the revisions to the proposed residence did not Include enough modifications to setback the upper level from the lower level to reduce the bulk and mass of the structure. Therefore, the proposed revised residence will continue to have full 2 -story facades, particularly along the northern side fagade, that when combined with the proposed driveway and motor court results In a residence that Staff believes is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood. As such, Staff feels that finding #8, regarding whether the proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, cannot be made and thus continuesto recommend denial of the Height Variation request. A-114 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (H% GRA ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahani Februn 111, 2014 GRADING FINDINGS At the December 10th meeting, Staff felt that the proposed project did not meet 6 of the required 8 cxiteria for approval of a Grading Permit. The proposed project at that Ume involved a total of 762 cubic yards of grading, 600 cubic yards of which were proposed for a new driveway and motor court as well as a Courtyard area at the front of the residence. As part of the revised project, the court yard was reduce! to a small pad, area connecting to a cantilevered deck, which oonsists, Of 7 cubic yards of fill with a 5 foot tall retaining wall, and results in -a final proposed grading amount of 466 cubic yards. The majority of fill is whattemains (298 cubic yards) is for the proposed new driveway and courtyard that allows the garage on the upper story of the proposed residence to be directly accessed from Knoll View Drive. Staff believes that as revised, the grading needed for the proposed driveway and motor court continues to not meet the following 6 grading criteria: 1. The grading does not exceed that which Is necessary for the permitted primary use of the int; Z. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural; 3. 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; 4, For new singio-family residences, the grading andira related construction Is compatible With the Immediate neighborhood character; .4. The grading utilizes street designs and Improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside; and S. The grading conforms to the City's Standards for grading on slopes, creation of new slopes, heights of retaining walls, and maximum driveway steepness (summarized below In Table 2) Table 2 - Proiec is Consistency with City's Standard Grading Criteria ';lievo:vpmlri: "�Tar`da [ding Proposed S i�ritsria Permittedon vacant lots, created plorta Construction on Mapes Construction ori alo. the City's incorpora#€onbased .upon $ , finding that the grading will not threaten over 35% for lot created over 35 Steepness public health, safety and welfare prier h� 1973 (oQnsJstent) 17.75.040 E g a '35% steepness, unless next to a Maximum finished Irh►eway where Q % steepness is Slopes steeper than 3596 slopes permitted (Not Consistent) 17,76:040 .E 6' depth, unless based upon a finding that unusual topography, soil conditions, Maximum depth of cut previous grading or other circumstances 10' depth -of fill or fill make such grading reasonable and (Not Consistent) necessary 17.76:040 E .g c Restricted grading No grading on slopes over 60% Grading on slope more areas steepness than 50% 17.76.040E 8 d Not con latent) A-115 Case No. ZON2011-00240 (H�l, GR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Oriva — Esfahahi February. 11, 2014 While the revised project minimizes the grading amounts and heights/amounts of retaining walls in the front yard area, Staff continues to find the proposed construction of the driveway and motor court to be excessive and incompatible. This is largely due to the fact that the property owner has the legal right to access the subject property viae dedicated access easement over an existing driveway that is part of the two abutting properties (29844 and 29848 Knoll View drive). As a result, the 298 cubic yards of grading over an extreme slam that is associated with trying to provide direct access to the lot from Knol l View Drive Is.ocA necessary. Staff consulted the City Attorney regarding the use of the eeserfieht. The City Attorney reviewed a tithe t'eport dated June 29, 2005 (attached), which was provided by Mr. Rutter, the Sorenson's attorney (property owners of 29848 Knoll View Drive), Based on that Information, the City Attorney determined that the subject property Is able to uso. the easement for ingress and egress without restriction. Although there is a grade difference between the existing driveway and buildable pad area of the subject lot at the front of the property, this slope lessens and the driveway and pad area are at the same general level at the 78'-79' elevation. Staff has observed that there Is a break in the existing foliage running along the length of the driveway at this point that would allow passage of vehicles. Further, Staff has spoken with neighbors who have observed vehicles driving on the driveway and onto the subject lot vie this access point. As such, Staff believes the proposed grading for a new driveway and courtyard continues to not meet the Grading criteria required and thus cannot recommend approval of a request fora Grading Permit. EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT As noted in the background section of this report, the revised project involves a 454 square foot deokthat cantilevers. from the front of the upper level over the extreme slope in the front yard, which connects to a retaining wall to fill the area between the deck and the stairs which provide access to Knoll View Drive, The Municipal Cade allows only minor encroachments of accessory structures A-116 One 8 =tall upslope wall 3 51- tall upslope walls 17.76.040 E e i Not consiatent One 3Y2' -tall downslope wall No downslope walls 1`11.76-040(ED(00i)1--- One 3%' -tall up- or downslope wall in 5' --tall upslope wall in side each side yard yard 17,75.040 E 9 e iii Not consistent Retaining WallsOne ;3' -tall up- or downslope wall 5'^tall downslope adjacent to driveway wells Walls adjaGent to the [17.76,040➢(E):(9)(e)(iv)] driveway Not ConslstAnt Detaining walls whin building footprint Retaining while up to 5'- 10" tell within building may exceed 8' (consistent) (17.76;D4D(Ejtj(e)(v)] 2096 modmum shops perMitted, with a 15% driveway slope single 10' -long section up to 2'296 (consistent) 17.76.040E)(9)(n(l)] 67% slopes permitted adjacent to Slopes adjacent to the Driveways driveways driveway not greater than (17,76.040(E)(9)(t)(ii)] 603% (consistent) While the revised project minimizes the grading amounts and heights/amounts of retaining walls in the front yard area, Staff continues to find the proposed construction of the driveway and motor court to be excessive and incompatible. This is largely due to the fact that the property owner has the legal right to access the subject property viae dedicated access easement over an existing driveway that is part of the two abutting properties (29844 and 29848 Knoll View drive). As a result, the 298 cubic yards of grading over an extreme slam that is associated with trying to provide direct access to the lot from Knol l View Drive Is.ocA necessary. Staff consulted the City Attorney regarding the use of the eeserfieht. The City Attorney reviewed a tithe t'eport dated June 29, 2005 (attached), which was provided by Mr. Rutter, the Sorenson's attorney (property owners of 29848 Knoll View Drive), Based on that Information, the City Attorney determined that the subject property Is able to uso. the easement for ingress and egress without restriction. Although there is a grade difference between the existing driveway and buildable pad area of the subject lot at the front of the property, this slope lessens and the driveway and pad area are at the same general level at the 78'-79' elevation. Staff has observed that there Is a break in the existing foliage running along the length of the driveway at this point that would allow passage of vehicles. Further, Staff has spoken with neighbors who have observed vehicles driving on the driveway and onto the subject lot vie this access point. As such, Staff believes the proposed grading for a new driveway and courtyard continues to not meet the Grading criteria required and thus cannot recommend approval of a request fora Grading Permit. EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT As noted in the background section of this report, the revised project involves a 454 square foot deokthat cantilevers. from the front of the upper level over the extreme slope in the front yard, which connects to a retaining wall to fill the area between the deck and the stairs which provide access to Knoll View Drive, The Municipal Cade allows only minor encroachments of accessory structures A-116 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, OR, ESP) Lot 7 on (Knoll View Drive — Esfahani February 11, 2014 onto extreme slopes (thirty-five percent or greater), contingent upon approval of an extreme slope permit. As the 2nd -story deck extends not more than 6 feet over the extreme slope in the front yard, an Extreme Slope Permit has been requested. in considering an Extreme Slope Permit application, RPVDC Section 17.76.080(F)(1) requires five (5) findings be made for the project under consideration (RPVDC language Is boldface, followed by Staffs analysis in normal type): 1. The alta cannot reasonably accommodate the structure except on an extreme slope. The subject property is situated where the pad level of the property is located approximately 20 feet below of the street level, with an extreme slope descending from the street to the pad portion of the lot. In order to provide access to the front of the residence, which has been designed with the main public rooms on the upper level, the proposed deck over a portion of the extreme slope allows a walkway and usable front yard structure that would connect to steps carved into the slope and up to the street. Due to the design of the project, which Is located at the toe of the extreme slope, any manner of providing access to the front of the propartywouid involve going over the extreme slope. As such, Staff believes that the site cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed deck without encroaching over the extreme slope and therefore this finding can be made. 2. The permit will result in no significant, adverse effect on neighboring properties. Factors to be considered In making this finding shall Include: view Impairment, visual impact, slope instability, Increased runoff and other Adverse impacts found to be significant. The proposed deck will be located at the front of the residence, between the proposed new structure and the street. As the extreme slope descends down to the residence, resulting in a valley -like space between the structure and the public right-of-way, there will be no adverse effects to neighboring properties. The sunken location of the deck will not be in any viewing area though it can be seen from the street, Staff found that the use of similar deck structures were used on adjacent properties to provide access to the front of the residence. Further, the deck would be required to obtain all building permits that comply with geological and building code requirements that will address any potential slope stability and/or drainage issues in conjunction with approval with the new residence. As such, Staff believes that the proposed deck will have no significant adverse effects on neighboring properties and therefore this finding can be mads. 8. The structure will not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. As noted In the previous fintling, the deck is located at the front of'the property and a lower elevation from the street. Due to its location adjacent to the public right-of-way, ate lower elevation from the street, and located 27 feet from the adjacent property to the south Staff believes the deck would not result In any infringement of privacy more than can be observed from the street. Therefore, Staff believes this finding can be made 4. Any disturbance of the slope will be insignificant. Staff believes any disturbance to the slope will be insignificant. As designed, there would be four pillars supporting the deck, of which only two will be located on the slope. The deck would then connect to a retaining wall where fill is proposed for a small flat area which would then fill the gap between where the dock ends and the stairs built into the slope. While there will be a 91 square foot area to provide the graded platform for the deck and slope, any disturbance caused by the proposed A-117 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, OK ESP) Lot 7 oo Knoll View Drive - Esfahan! Psbruary 11,:2014 deck cantilevering over the slope will bs Insignificant. Therefore, Staff believes this finding can be made. 6. The permit is consistent with the General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan or 'any other applicable plan. The General Plan designates the subject parcel for Residential 1-2 DU/acre, the proposed deck is consistent with construction for residential development. The purpose of the Residential, 1-2 DU/acre land use designation in the General Plan is to allow for the development of low- to moderate -density residential neighborhoods, including the types of accessory structures normally associated with single-family residences, such as the proposed deck. In addition, Urban Environment Policy No. 3 calls upon the City to "encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to fnaintain optimum looalstandards of housing quality and design." Staff believes that the extreme slope at the: front of the residence restricts access to the front of the residence to where the use sof a cantilevered deck Is both reasonable and consistent with the immediate neighborhood. Also, the subject parcel is not located within the City's Coastal Zone, nor is it subject to any overlay control district standards. As such, Staff believes the proposed deck is consistent with the goals AN policies of the Cites General Plan and therefore=this finding can be made. ►3, 0101 fLe]LlLJ41N;Ls]ZJII;1_11f.Lo] 2.. Public Comments Staff received three items of correspondence regarding the revised project since the december 10, 2013 public hearing. The first Is an e-mail from Marshall A. Rutter, the attomey representing Mr. Maynard Sorenson, the property owner of 29848 Knoll View Drive, located directly east of the subject lot. Mr. Rutter writes that his client .strongly objects" to the applicant's use of the access easement over the existing driveway of the adjacent lot. Siting damage to the existing shrubbery lining the driveway, changes to the driveway and excessive use, Mr. Flutter states that this would cause considerable damage and make access to his client's residence difficult. As the proposed new driveway and motor court would not cause damage to the shrubbery line the driveway, Mr. Rutter says that his client is in support of the proposed new driveway and motor court, but continues to object to the proposed residence, which he opines "is massive and out of keeping with the neighborhood." Second, an e-mail was received from Tamara and Reuben Vollmer, property owners of 29840 Knoll View Drive, located directly north of the subject lot. Mrs. and Mr. Vollmer are "confused and disappointed" with the revised project, as they find that the reduction does not improve the "huge, looming look and feel of the building next door.* Additionally, they thought it had been determined that the new residence would be using the eAsting driveway between their lot and the subject lot, and this raised concerns about how such driveway use could adversely affect their property as well as the stability of the driveway. They conclude that the proposed revised residence "is not consistent with the neighborhood by size [.,.] nor is it consistent with the intended design of the `flag lot' concept.' A third item submitted was a letter was received from the property owner Marshal Esfahani, of the Hermosa Seaside Development Corp. Mr. Esfahani writes that Mr. Sorenson (of 29848 Knoll View Drive) objects to the use of the driveway within .the adjacent easement, and that the "proposed driveway will work best forthe applicant and the other two neighborsthat are using the easement as A-118 Caso No. ZON2011-00280 (14V, GR,'ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahan! February -I1., 2014 a driveway." Staff understands that the other driveway users and adjacent property owners may have concern with use of the driveway for the subject property. However, given that the applicant has a legal right to use the adjacent driveway and use of one driveway serving multiple properties is commonly seen in the neighborhood, Staff believer, the project site could be designed with a residence that can be accessed by the existing driveway that would avoid 300 cubic yards of grading and require no impacts or significant modifications to the driveway within the easement. Any impacts such as grading to the driveway would require easement holder's authorization, Lastly, although comments were riot submitted, Staff spoka with Azedeh Mardani, property owner of 281344 Knoll View Drive, who currently accesses her property via the driveway in the easement adjacent to the subject parcel. In keeping with the comments she made in an e-mail that was given to the Planning Commission as late correspondence at the December 101x1 meeting (attached), Ms. Mardani stated that she has no Issue with the applicant's use of the driveway in the easement, but is concemed that any damage to the driveway during construction may make access to her residence difficult and any such damage should be repaired after construction. Also, she has a concern with runoff water and soil from the subject site as a result of grading and construction, which would affect her downslope property. CON-GLWSlON For the reasons explained in this report, Staff believes that while the revised project alleviates some of the concerns identified with the original proposal, and Staff was able to make all the findings for approval of the Extreme Slope Permit, the revised project continues to result in excessive grading and is not compatible with the neighborhood. As a result, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny without prejudice Case No. ZON2011-00280. 6LTERNATIVES The Alternatives available for Consideration by the Planning Commission are; 1. Direct the applicant to re -design and continue the item to the Planning Commission meoting to a date certain (with Staff recommending March 25th). 2. Approve Case No. ZON2013-00063 and direct Staff to retum with a revised resolution ata date certain. ATTACHMENTS • P.C. Resolution No. 2014-,_, • E-mail from Marshall,A. Butter* dated January 31,, 20140 E-mail from Tamara Vollmer, dated January 31, 201-4 • Letter from Hermosa Seaside Development Corp, dated January 30, 2014 • E-mail from Azadeh Mardani, dated December 5, 2033 • Title Report for Lot T (subject lot), ;dated June 28, 2005 • Planning Commission Minutes from December 10, 2013 • Planning Commission Staff Report from December 10, 2013 • Project Plans A-119 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014% A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING AND EXTREME SLOPE FOR A NEW 5,203 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH A TOTAL OF 466 'CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING, ON AN EMSTING VACANT LOT (APN 7566-006.0113) (CASE NO. $ON2011- 002,@0), WHEREAS, on April 21, 1905, Tract Map 27142 was recorded with the County of Los Angeles, thereby creating the subject property along with the other properties within the Miraleste Hills community; and, WHEREAS., on October 14, 2011, an application was submitted requesting Height 'variation, Grading and Site Plan Review approval for the construction of a new 6,105 square foot, 2 -story single-family residence and garage on the existing vacant lot, including 762 cubic yards of grading; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2011, the application was deemed incomplete; and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2013, Staff deemed #s3 project complete after the submittal of additional Information and revised plans reducing the scale of the project and proposed grading on October 29, 2013 and November 1, 2013; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Califomis Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 210.00 et. Seq. CCEQ ), the State's CEQA Guidelines, Califivmis Code of Regulation, Title 14, Rection 15000 et. Seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Corte Section -65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that ZON2011-00280 would have a significant effect ion the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be catagotically attempt Under Ciass 3 (Section 15303) since the prged Involves the construction of a new rosidenoe on a legally supdivided lot; and, WHEREAS, on November 7, 2013, a notice was published and mailed pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, the applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension to the decision deadline and the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to February 11, 2014; thereby allowing the applicant additional time to address concerns related to bulk and mass, grading and neighborhood compatibility; and, WHEREAS, on February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly,noticed public heating, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present :evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 014=Page 1 of 4 A-120 Seco The proposed project is a request to construct a new 5,203 square foot, 2 -story residence, including a 649 square foot 3 -car garage, involving a total of 466 cubic yards of grading (106 CY of cut and 360 CY of fill) for the construction of a new driveway and motor court providing access directly off Knoll View Drive, leveling of the property, a new pool and spa In the rear yard, and retaining walls connecting a created small pad area to a new 454 square foot deck over an extreme slope in the front yard area. Section The proposed grading is excessive for what is necessary for the lot, as fill is proposed on an existing extreme slope in the front yard area for a new driveway and motor court in the front yard area that is not commonly found in the surrounding area when there is sufficient usable flat area In the rear yard of the subject property and the availability of an existing driveway that provides access to the subject lot. Spaoll 3• The proposed grading does not minimize disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are not reasonably natural, as the multiple retaining walls proposed for the new driveway, motor court and grading in the front yard area interrupt the natural contours of the front yard slope, which do not look to blend with the existing slope nor appear not to be similar to any other properties in the area. Section 4: The proposed grading does not take into account the preservation of natural topographic features, as the excessive amount of grade being added results in retaining walls that do not appear to be natural nor can be found on any of the neighboring properties with similar site conditions. SmOon 6: The proposed grading is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as there is an existing driveway which currently provides access to the pad level of the subject lot that would not require the construction of a new driveway and motor court, which were not found on any of the other similar lots along Knoll View Drive. Section 6: The proposed grading does not conform to the City's standards for grading on slopes, as the project would result in a maximum depth of fill over five 160 in depth, grading on slopes over 50% steepness, more than one upslope retaining wall, a wall taller than 3.6' in the side yard, and more than one retaining wall adjacent to the driveway. The proposed grading cannot deviate from these criteria, as the proposed grading is not harmonious with the adjacent lands and does not maintain the visual continuity of the hillside community. Further, as there Is an existing driveway that is able to provide access to the subject lot, the new driveway and motor court are not features commonly seen among other similar properties in the vicinity, which would be a grant of special privilege. Section is The applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process established by the City, and as directed by the Community Development Director, by mailing reduced copies of the project plans and a notice to all landowners within 500 feet of the subject property via registered mail. Section : The Height Variation is warranted since the portions of the proposed new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height 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 City -designated viewing areas due to the topography in the area and the location of the subject property. P.C. Resolution No. 2014_-,_ Page 2of4 A-121 Section 9: The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed new residence is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject property is located within a hillside community, on an existing pad lot and does not overlook any other single-family residences. The residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Municipal Code. Section 10: The Height Variation is warranted because the portions of the new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, will not significantly impair City -protected views from the viewing areas of neighboring properties. Specifically, properties in the neighborhood which overlook the subject property are at a significantly higher elevation than the pad level of the subject lot, allowing protected viewing areas to continue to have unobstructed views. over the proposed new residence and will only block :the views of residences or buildings and foliage located down the hillside, which are not protected views. Section 11: The Height Variation is warranted because proposed portions of the new residence that exceed sixteen feet in height are designed to minimize the impairment of a view, as the proposed residence is situated as close to the front of the lot as possibie with the current design and at a significantly lower elevation, which allows a better angle over the proposed residence from the upslope neighboring properties Section 12: The Height Variation is warranted because granting the application would not cause significant cumulative view impairment, as the adjacent parcels located on the same downslope side as the subject parcel have also been constructed with 2 -story residences on a pad level that appears to be at the relatively same elevation as the subject lot. Section 13: The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements, including the RS -2 zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage, property line setbacks, landscaping, and the required garage size for single-family residences that exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. Section 14: The Height Varlation it not warranted because the proposed now residence design and location is not compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood. More specifically, the size and scale of the proposed 2 -story residence appears much larger than the other sizes of residences in the immediate neighborhood, resulting in what appears to be a bulky and massive structure that is not compatible as seen from Knoll View Drive. Section 16: The Height Variation is warranted because the portion of the structure above 16 feet will not result In unreasonable infringement of privacy of the abutting residences. Specifically, the adjacent parcel's privacy will not be impacted any differently than what is already experienced, as each of the properties can be seen from Knoll View Drive over the currently vacant subject lot and the view onto the adjacent lots from proposed 2"" -story windows, balconies and decks the wilt not be different from What is currently observed from the street. Section Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday February 26, 2014,. A $2,275 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on February 26, 2014. P.C. Resolution No. 2014 - Page 3 of 4 A-122 Seo jon g: For the .foregoing reasons and based on the information .and findings Included in the Staff Reports, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, without prejudice, Case No. ZON2011-00280 for a Height Variation, Grading and Extreme Slope Permit. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11 1h day of February 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: RECUSALS: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Joel Rojas, AiCP Community Development Director, and, Secretary of the Planning C*mmisslon David Emenhiser, Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 4 of 4 A-123 `Abigail Harwell From: Marshall Rutter <mrutter®rutterlaw.com> Seat.. Friday, January 31, 2014 813 PM To: Abigail Harwell Cc: 'Sidney Croft' Subject Case No. ZON2011-00280; Tract 27142, Lot 7, Knoll View Drive Dear Ms. Harwell: As you know, I represent Maynard D. Sorenson, of S & K Industries„ Inc, owner of the home at 29848 Knoll View Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. Mr, and Mrs. Sorenson are the occupants of that home. This property Is immediately east of the above referred to Lot 7, the subject of the above case number. 1 previously communicated with you about the proposed use of the driveway owned by my clients, over which the owner of lot 7 has an easement. I have communicated with Sidney Croft, counsel for the applicant over the past week or more. On behalf of our clients, we have reached agreement regarding the driveway. My client, upon being advised what would be done to the driveway if the applicant were to use it, strongly objects to his use of the driveway. It would cause the destruction of trees, leveling of a portion of the driveway so that applicant could gain access to his driveway, and excessive use of the driveway. This would cause considerable damage to the driveway and make access to my clients' property difficult. The applicant.has agreed to build his own driveway In such a manner so as not to remove or cause damage or destruction of the trees and shrubbery along the south side of the driveway. He would replace any damaged or destroyed shrubbery or trees. For this reason, Mr. Sorenson supports the location of the driveway as it is depicted on the plans submitted to the Commission, namely, on applicant's property, adjacent to my driveway. Although my client supports the location of the driveway as Stated above, he continues to make the objections to the :plan as set forth In my earlier letter to the -commission, dated December 1, 201% and I urge that the commission riot approve the plans unless and until the objections have been satisfied. The planned residence is massive and out of keeping with the neighborhood. Its hard surfaces pose threats of water damage to Mr. Sorenson's property, as the gulley between them Is proposed to be coveted by the applicant. If you need any further Information or clarification of Mr. Sorenson's position, please do not hesitate to call. Marshall A. Rutter Marshall A. Rafter Law Office of Marshall A. aRutter A Professlanal Corporatlon Eastside Office: IlVestslde Qf w: 70 S. take Avenue 10100 Santa Monle'a Boulevard Suite 810 Suite 300 Pasadena, C491101 los Angeles, G4 90067 (t) (626) M4-7770 it) (310)2864M (fl (626) 8"-7773 (fl ( 626) 944-7773 www.rutteriaw.cnm A-124 Abigail Harwell To: Tamara Vollmer Subject: RE: PC Meeting on February 11th re: New Residence on Knoll View (Case No. ZON2011-W280) From: Tamara Vollmer Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 4:20 PM To: Abigail Harwell; Azadeh Mardani; Gina Nader; Marshall Rutter; Rob Van Dam Subject Re: PC Meeting on February 11th re: New Residence on Knoll View (Case No. ZON2011-00280) Hello ,Abigail, Reuben and 1 just viewed the "revised" plan for the house next door. We are confused and disappointed. The reduction in Sq. footage was only 394 sq. ft. This has not changed the Huge, looming look and feel of the building next door at all. None of that 394 sq ft came off of the North elevation. The only size modification was to change, slightly, the entry to the house, remove a veranda off the back south east corner, and s very minor change to the south west Corner. The new revised plan does not show any change or alteration to the driveway, motor court, or garage. We were under the impression it hath been determined thAftbe ealsting driveway off Knoll View would be used for the new building. As adjacent property owners, we are very concerned about the stability of that existing driveway once the Juniper um are removed, and to what extent the existing drive will be modified to accommodate entry to the new construction. The "revised plan" indicates that the owner/builder still intends to build a driveway on his property adjacent to the existing driveway. In our opinion, the new bow with revised plans, is not. consistent with the neighborhood, by Lime (:it is still approximately 2000 sq tt larger than this neighborhood norm) nor is it consistent with the intended design of the "flag lot' concept. It is also nay opinion that the revised plains are flawed and inaccurate. Sincerely Tamara & Reuben Vollmer 29810 Knoll View Dr A-125 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes to 90275 Planning department Attn: Abigail Harwell Re: Knoll view project Dear Ms. Harwell; RECEIVED ,IAN' 3 0 2014 COMtl+ltlWl y pEVEWPMENT OWARiMEN? !ah -30-2014 In regards to the easement to access our garage, Mr. Sorenson our neighbor on the,west We has been and is sl rangly opposed using fhe easement for the purpose of.driveway. We belleve that our proposed gdriveYway wiJi workbust for the oppliCant'and the other two nelghbors that are using the easement as a driveway. Thi%should satisfy -Mr. Sorenson.arid othermighbors. We a Nould:appredate if you can take this issue In conslaerativn and Support our application. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely Hermosa Seaslot4elopment Corp 314 Tejon Plate Palos Verdes Estates,Ca 90274 A-126 Abigail Harwell From: Azadeh Mardani Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 11:15 AM TW. Abigail Harwell cc: sina mardani Subject: Re: Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Hi Abigail - I did a quick read thru of the report you sent but will have to go over it more carefully to give you any additional comments if we have them. However our primary concerns for now is the Driveway. The shared driveway will have to be used at some point either during the construction and/or for the final home which will be built at this lot and we have no right to say that they cannot use it as their driveway, and as I mentioned to you on the phone have never made such a claim to the developer/owner. However we want to make sure it is rebuilt and repaired so that once the construction is complete as well as during the construction that we aren't left with an unusable driveway and apron at the street level to access our home. Our second biggest concern which 1 mentioned to you is the runoff water/soil from all of the grading which will be done for this construction, this also effects the raveling that is occuring on the asphalt segment of the shared driveway. Currently most of the water is draining down the shared driveway and into our parking area and causing a big mess. It seems the grading will be the majority of the construction and we are very concerned what will happen to the runoff during the construction and/or during the rainy season. Do they have any construction plans for the grading and storm waterfrun off cleanup and management? Also is there any idea as to the construction schedules at this point. How long and what is the time frame? Finally since the home is behind our home we have no comments on the size and/or height since it doesn't apply to us however I can understand all the neighbors concerns over the size of the house being built, it does seem a bit out of place. I will definitely get back to you if we have any further concerns but for now the Driveway and runoff is our biggest concern. Thank you so much for contacting us and getting our input. Sincerely, Azadeh Mardani 29844 Knoll View Drive A-127 U, X07 OS lass 45 I'AS it 001 E7 '1120as 19: 35 5267451 jil F�¢ d1:�3 ` l awyore Telt Ccuvoy Lan r 1erica 1.51 S. Ulm Aw rme Lawyers Title Ain fi' ru.aens, CA 91101 Phonc: (626) 004-2700 Peninsula escrow 57 Malaga Cove Plaza Palos Verdes Estates, CA ill,0274 Atm! Victcrla Your Reference No: 1238341+10 Property Addrt$c Vacant , Califoroll Our ills No: 02356734 - 48 Title Dlfilcert 3ulra Rodrl9ue2 e-mail: irodripu"@landarn.com Direct Phone: (626) 304-2700, ext. 344 Fax Number: (626) 795-5640 UPDATED PRELIMINARY REPORT Dated as of )une 20, 2005 A 7,30 O.M. In moponse to the above referenced application far a policy or title insurance, Lawyers Title Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, 05 of the dote hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter het forth, lnsurino against loss which relay ire sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or refa:ved to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Cond'etimis and Stipulations of said policy forms. 'The printed Exceptions and Exclusion from the coverage Qf said Policy or Policies are set forth M Exhibit H attacheq. Copies of the Policy form should be read. They are available from the offlctt which issued this report. This report (and any supplements or amendments harato) is lssuod solely for the purpane of focliltatirig the issuance ar a policy or title Insurance and he Ilabllity Is assumed hereby. If It is dosired that liability be assumed prior to the lesuance Df a polity of title Insurance, a Binder or ComPniCmem should be requested. Please rtad the axceptlons shown or referred to below and th6 4xicaptions lard exclusions ser forth la kxhlbit A of this report carrwfuliy. The exceptions and eXclusiwrs are meant to provide you with noticn of matters which art trot covered under the terms of tfm tftJe insurance popery and should bit- earoeful)y conslderrid. It is lrnaportanr to noft drat thts preliminary rr.port Is not a wrltlrra representation as ro the Condition of title and may scot list all liens, defects, and ericumhranries a+iYectiny title to th4 !diad. CI.TA Pral'tmnary Repot (Rev. 1.1.95) Page i A-128 07;01'05 18:43 PAX 'IOU.^, V.,31i2W - "S:'6 L26799' dA LIC LNIT 40 RIME ai::3 File Nn. 023S6194 SCHEDULE A The form of polity or title Inavrence contemplated by this report is. ALTA Loan 1,962 CLTA "timeownees; Policy of Irlee Insurance The estate or interest in the land herelnefter described or referred to covered by this report Is: A PEE as to Parcel(9) i, AN EASEMENT more fully desorlbed below as to Parcel(a) 2 Tale to said eatate or Interest at the date heroof Is vested in: Anna M. Dalry, a married woman, as her cote and separate properly Tt'ie land r&gyred to herein Is situated In the Cgwlty of Los Anoeles, State of celifor". and is described as followsi SEE IEXHIUT "A" ATTACHNI) HE.RH'CD AND r7AOE A PART HIEREGIP Page 2 A-129 o"i • 47 '06 IS' 15 Fax lilooa a7tillJ2OB5 19--35 &Z79F a LTG UNIT 46 PALL 6113 Mb Nc- 02356794 EXHIBIT "'A" All that certain real property situated in the county of Los Angeles, state of California, described as follows: Parcel 1: Lot 7 of Tract No. 27142, In the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of Califomis, as par map recorded th Book 740, pages 22 to 25 of maps, in the Office of the County Rec orxier of sold County. rarcel 2: Anon -exclusive eaaement for ingress and egress over those portions of Lot f+ and of the Southerly 10.00 Feet of Lot15 of Tract No. 27142, In the CoeuIty of Los Angeles, state of California, a5 shown can map recorded In book 740, Pagp:s 72 to U lnc)usive of 'Maps., in the Office of the County recorder of said county, lying Weaterty of the Northerly prolongation of the Easterly Line of Lot 7 of sold tract No. 227142 Assessor's Parcel Number: 7566-0,016-018 Page 3 A-130 '-Or- IIPiTi QH PAGE 64117 tli�0:.''ltlll�� ly:'45 630795 1 rik,Wo- 02356794 SCHEDULE 0 At the date hereof Exoepeions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions In said policy form would be as follows; A. Property taxes, includinq general and special taxes, personal property taxes, if ally, ane any assemments collected with taxes, to be iavied for the fish! year 2005 - 2006 which are a lien not yet payisbW 0. Property taxes, Including general Snip special taxes, personal properly taxes. If any, ang any assessments c.nlleCmd with taxes, for the hSWl vena shmn below, are paid. For proration pU"pDses the arnoontS are: goal year ZO0a - 2405 list inatailment: 5343.91 2nd installment. $543.90 exemption, Snonr: Coda Area- 07097 As"ssthient No.: 7566.006. 18 C. Supplernaptel or esr4ped amrerrients bt property tWe5, It any, ass@56ed p4l'SiMt to the Revgnual anti Taxation Code or The Mate Of Cal ifarnla. 1. The etfpct of it Unrecorded Agreement bated: not shown Execumd by: Tingle & Pearson Inc., a Corporation and the Pacific Telephnne and Telegraph Company kecorded: February 27, 3952 :n Book Iii -959 Page 165, of Official Pecerds 2 The effect of 0 an instrument Dattd: not shower Executed OY: J. ti, barton Construction Co., Inc, ;recorded: Mw4h 16, 1955 in look R-220 Page 37$, of Dlfk lol records 9. Covtrnants, Conditions and restrictions as Y -et forth In tate document Recorded: Nine S. 1964 In 400k M-1884 Page 89, of Offrv!al RsdO►ds This exception omits i}„ y covetlant, icondition or re5trictlion based on race, wW, refilgion, sex, handicap, fornillal status or natlpnal engin, unless and only to the extent that the covenant, .c-+dltIDn or restriction (a) I5 not in viol9tlon tat' State or federal law, (b) is kxempt under 42 U.S.C. Section 360? or (0 rolores to a Mrdlrap but does not disci lmma a ago;nst hano'capped people. Said covenants, tondMons and restrictions provide that a Oolatloal thereof shall trot defeat the lien W any mortgage or deed of trust tnade In gnod faith and For value. Paye 4 A-131 07 • of U¢ 4a 19 FAX 4Oo3 +?7,C:. 'tet',ti i9:55 162679S' 'q5 L.'rC JNI7 49 PAGE 0i113 Ke No: 10735094 4. Covenants, conditions and restrictions 9s set forth in the document Recorded November 14, 3957 In book 56066 Page 375, of Official Records 1'hls PxcewuDn omits any covenant, condition or restriction based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, farnillal status or national origin, unless and only to the :xtent that the covenant, condition or restriction (a) is not in violation of state ur rederal law, (b) is exempt under 42 U.S.C. section 3607 or (q.) relates to a handicap but does not discriminate agoing handicapped P"Ple. Said covenants, conditions and restrictlons provide that s violation thereof shall not defeat the lien of any mortgage or deed nr trust made In good faith mid for valuo_ 5. Water riaahts, claims or titin to water, whether or not shown by Oe public records. b. A deed of trust to secure an Indebtedness in the amdtlnt shown below, and arty other "obfthtsoris shred thereby, Amount, S15,000.00 dated: Dctobsr 0, 1953 Trustor: Anna M. puffy Trustoe: Palos Verdes AssorciateS, a CallforNa-Corporation Beneficiary: 3. H. Burton Construction, Co., Inc. Loan No not shown Recorded: November 30, 1965 as Instrunirmt No. T1206 in gook +4746 page 906, of Official Recores An assignment of the beneficial interest under said deed of trust which ;tames A9 Auignmi David WohvWn and Hclen Welnsteln, hu:band and wits! Loan No: not shown Rer:orded, June 17, 1965 as instrument No. 3605, of OtficuA Rs cords END OF SCi1EDULE 0 M=PVZONS ii:iASE REFER TO THE 'NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS SECTION" WHICH FOLLOWS FOR INFORMATKON HECESSARY TO COMPLSTE THIS TRANSACTION Page 5 A-132 Planning Commission Minutes (December 10, 2013) A-133 5. HelehtVariation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011- 00281 : APN 766.6-006-018 Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining the proposal was for a new single family residence on a currently vacant lot. She explained the scope of the proposed project, showing the proposed building footprint. She stated that staff had concerns with making the necessary findings for the Height Variation and the Grading Permit, noting staff felt the .grading was excessive and the proposed second story too bulky and massive. She stated staff was unable to make :six of the required nine grading findings, as explained in the staff report. She explained stafps concerns with bulk and mass, as well as neighborhood compatibility. As such, staff was recommending denial of the project. However, she noted the applicant has read staff s report, understands the concerns, and has expressed a wish to redesign the project after receiving input from the Commission. \lice Chairnnan Leon asked staff to clarify the use of the flag lot driveway, and If the applicant'is allowed use of the existing driveway. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that staff is still unclear as to whether .or not the applicant has the ability to use the existing driveway, explaining staff has not seen any documentation on the easements associated with the .driveway. Chairman l=menhiser opened the public hearing. Emir Esfahahi (applicant) explained that he thought he was :heading in the right direction with this project until he read the stuff report and staffs recommendation of denial: He stated :that he understandsi staff's and neighboes ooncerns and would Ike the opporturddy to redesign the project to address these conaema; and asked the Planning Commission to .consider continuing the Item to allow him to do so. Assistant Planner Barwell noted that she .has spoken to the architect, who ihdicated he would be ableto have a new design and .a new silhouette constructed in time for staff to prepare a report for the February .1 tth meeting. Mr. Esfahan! added that in terms of the driveway, he was under the impression that he has an ,easement to use the driveway, as the 'title Report shows an easement. Don Sorenson discussed the tress on the property, noting they are very slow growing trees. Commissioner Tomblin stated that in looking at the plans he felt there is a lot of work that has to be done to redesign the project. He would therefore prefer to give the applicant direction in terms of the findings and the design, most notably the bulk and mass. Planning commission Minutes Dooember 10, 2013 Page 8 A-134 Mice Chairman Leon stated one of the design guidelines he would like to see applied to this property, is that when there is a major view in a specific direction, the new house does not protrude in front of the view of the two adjacent houses. As a consequence, in this case the rear yard setback becomes quite important. He would prefer to see a house designed with considerably less bulk and mass and be behind the view of the adjacent houses so it is not blocking their view. Commissioner Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to February 11, 2014 to allow the applicant to redesign the project, provided the applicant agrees to the required 90 day -extension, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting. Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZUN2013-00111): 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. ChairmaXEmenhiser recused himself from this item and left the dais. Director Rot resented the staff report, noting the applicant is request( more time to prepare structur Iculations in order to erect a correct mock-up. efore, staff is recommending the blic hearing be continued to an unspecified d , which will require staff to prepay new public notice, once the date has be identified. Commissioner Tetreault ved to continue the public wring to an unspecified date, as recommended by ISIC by Comm" loner Nelson. Approved without objection, with Chains Emenhiser recu d. Chairman Emenhiser returned to the FA Assistant Planner Harwell presented staff rep reviewing the additional changes to the Fence Wall and Hedge Cod action that the nning Commission agreed upon at the September meeting, inclu g the removal of h s from the Fence Wall and Hedge Permit application pro s and to create an initial visit for a Fence and Wall permit. She explained that ha a City Council hes adopted the w Building Code, which allows freestanding wall nd fences up to 7 feet in height wit a permit, and Initiated a code amendment to ange the Development Cade to be consis t with the Building Code. This initiatio as been combined with this current code amen ent before the Planning Comm' ton. Finally, she clarified the height restriotions for fe s and walls on flag lots, a is in the staff report. She stated staff was seeking action from the Planni ommission and Is prepared to bring a Resolution for adoption he Commi n at the next meeting. hairman Leon asked, in regards to the site visit, did staff feel it was clear when will and will not be required. Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2013 Page 9 A-135 Planning Commission Staff Report (December 10, 2013) A-136 CITYOF L4qo RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823-G4 TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE: PLANNING COMMISSION CODE SECTIONS: MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 17.02, 17.48 AND 17.76.040 FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IR TOR DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2018 SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING AND SITE CEQA: PLAN REVIEW PERMIT ACTION DEADLINE: (CASE NO. ZON2011-00280) PROJECT ADDRESS: TRACT 27142, LOT 7 (APN 7566.006-018) VACANT LOT EAST OF KNOLL VIEW DRIVE APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: MARSHAL ESFAHANI PHONE: 810.7914M STAFF COORDINATOR: ABIGAIL HARWELL, ASSISTANT PLANNER REQjE$TEV ACTIQN: A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,597 SQUARE FOOT, 2 -STORY SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GARAGE, WITH 712 CUBIC YARDS OF TOTAL ASSOCIATED GRADING ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT LOCATED EAST OF KNOLL VIEW DRIVE (APN 7566-006.018). RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-_, THEREBY DENYING, YI "OUT PREJUDICE, A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING AND SITE PLAN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A NEW 5,957 SWARF FOOT,1WO43TORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH A TOTAL OF 712 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING, ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOCATED AT EAST OF KNOLL VIEW DRIVE (CASE NO. ZON2011-00280). aE� EN20; ZONING: RS -2 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FAMILY CODE SECTIONS: MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 17.02, 17.48 AND 17.76.040 GENERAL PLAN: RESIDENTAIL,1-2 DU/ACRE TRAILS PLAN: NONE SPECIFIC PLAN: NIA CEQA: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) ACTION DEADLINE: JANUARY 8, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE A-137 BACKGROUND On April 21, 1965, Tract Map 27142 was recorded with the County of Los Angeles, thereby creating the subject property along with the other properties with the Miraleste Hills community. While the tract proceeded to be developed with residences between 1966 and 1973, the subject lot remained vacant. On October 10, 2011, an application was submitted requesting Height Variation, Grading and Site Plan Review approval for the construction of a new 6,105 square foot, 2 -story single-family residence and garage on the existing vacant lot, including 762 cubic yards of grading. After review of the proposed plans by both the Public Works and Community Development Department Staff, the application was deemed incomplete on October 31, 2011 due to missing information. After the submittal of additional information and revised plans reducing the scale of the project and proposed grading, the applicant submitted the last remaining information on October 29 and November 1, 2013, and Staff subsequently deemed the application complete on November 4, 2013. It should be noted that the City Geologist has reviewed the geotechnical reports and has conceptually approved the geotechnical reports on August 1, 2013. On November 4, 2013, notice of the pending application was sent to 78 property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, as well as to the Miraleste Hills Community Association. Furthermore, the notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on November 7, 2013. Staff has received three letters of concern from neighborhoods regarding the proposed project at the time of writing this report. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is a 15,316 square foot vacant lot located east of Knoll View Drive. The vacant lot has a pad area lower than the street level, with an extreme downslope in the front yard that descends approximately 20 feet from the street level to the pad level. The neighborhood is developed with a combination of one and two-story residences, and all are zoned RS -2, including the subject site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a 5,597 square foot 2 -story single-family residence, measuring 26'-0" tall at the highest ridgeline as measured from the existing adjacent grade, with the site graded to match this existing grade elevation. As proposed, a new driveway will be constructed directly off of Knoll View Drive, which will access the 3 -car garage and 2 -story residence. The upper level will be the main floor of the residence and will measure a total of 3,077 square feet of habitable space with a 683 square foot in -direct garage, while the lower level will measure 2,345 square feet of habitable space. In addition to the proposed residence, there is a 10'-0" tall, 79.5 square foot patio cover, a new pool and spa proposed in the rear yard area. The overall lot coverage for the proposed project, including the new 1,270 square feet of driveway and parking areas, accessory structure, and hardscape areas, is proposed at forty percent (40%). In order to accommodate a new driveway to provide access to the garage on the upper level, 326 cubic yards of fill is proposed on the extreme slope in the front yard with 3 retaining walls, one on the north side and two on the southern sides of the driveway, measuring up to 5'-0" tall A-138 to support the proposed driveway. Also, 147 cubic yards of fill is proposed in the front yard to create an entry courtyard at the front of the residence, with two retaining walls on either side to support the proposed fill with the tallest height of retention measuring F -o" tall. In addition to the grading proposed in the front yard area, 179 cubic yards of cut and 60 cubic yards of fill is proposed to be conducted for leveling of the lot and construction of the proposed pool and spa in the rear yard. Outside of the proposed driveway and courtyard areas, no additional retaining walls are proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Staff has reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Upon completion of this review, it has been determined that this request is categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Categorical Exemptions are projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and have been exempted from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15303 (Class 3 Exemption) allows new construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. It is Staffs opinion that the project site meets these provisions and therefore qualifies for a Class 3 exemption. CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS Height Variation Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(B)(1) allows the construction of single-family residences on pad lots within the RS -2 zone that do not exceed 16 feet, as measured from the pre - construction grade at the highest elevation of existing building pad covered by structure to the ridgeline; and 20 feet, as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade, to the highest point of the structure. Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(6)(1) allows these heights to be increased to a maximum height of 26 feet with the approval of a Height Variation Permit. Given that the subject property is considered to be a pad lot and is proposing a height at the rear of the residence that exceeds 20 feet (proposed: 23'-8"), a Height Variation Permit is required. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(a)(iv), the Director is required to refer the Height Variation to the Planning Commission when the portion of the structure which exceeds 16 feet in height is being developed as part of a new single-family residence. Given that the proposed project meets this criterion, it is subject to Planning Commission review. Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e) sets forth the findings (in bold type) required in order for the Planning Commission to approved a Height Variation: 1. The applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process established by the city; The City's early neighbor consultation process requires the applicant to obtain and submit the signatures of property owners within a 500 foot radius of the applicant's property. The early neighbor consultation is deemed adequate only if the signatures of at least 60% of the landowners within 500 feet; or 70% of the landowners within 100 feet and 25% of the total number of landowners within 500 feet (including those within 100 feet) is provided, as well as A-139 proof of notification of the homeowner's association, if one exists. There are 66 properties within the 500 foot radius of the subject property that are located within the city boundaries. Based upon a letter submitted, by the applicant on January 8, 2013, multiple attempts to go door-to-door to discuss the proposed project with property owners were unsuccessful in obtaining the necessary amount of signatures. Further, the applicant hosted an open house on May 9, 2012, which also did not provide enough signatures to comply with the early neighborhood consultation process. As such, pursuant to the City's Height Variation Guidelines, the Director allowed the applicant to proceed with an alternative consultation method, which involved mailing reduced copies of the project plans and a notice to all landowners within 500 feet of the subject property via registered mail. On October 7, 2013, the applicant submitted copies of the certified mail receipts and a copy of the notice sent to all property owners within a 500 foot radius. As such, the applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and this finding can be adopted. 2. The proposed new structure that is above 16' in height or addition to an existing structure that Is above 16' in height 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 City - designated viewing areas: The subject property is not overlooked by any park, major thoroughfare, bikeway, walkway or equestrian trail identified in the City's General Plan. Due to the subject lot being vacant since the tract was developed, many residents in the surrounding neighborhood have opined that they enjoy the view of the lot on walks or drives along Knoll View Drive. However Knoll View Drive is not a major thoroughfare nor a vehicular corridor upon which is protected per the City's General Plan. Also, the property is not located in the Coastal Zone. Therefore, the proposed project on the subject property cannot significantly impair a view from any of these noted public properties, and this finding can be adopted. 3. The proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or a promontory; The Development Code defines a ridge and promontory as follows: "Ridge"means the elongated crest or a linear series of crests of hills, bluffs or highlands. "Promontory" means a prominent mass of land, large enough to support development, which overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides. The subject property is located within a developed single-family residential tract where there are other adjacent parcels with varying pad elevations that were terraced when initially constructed. The tract is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Development Code, and therefore this finding can be adopted. 4. The area of a proposed new structure that Is above 16' in height or addition to an existing structure that is above 16' in height, which considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel; The proposed project is a new, 2 -story single-family residence measuring 26-0" tall, as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (79.50') to the highest finished ridgeline (105.50'). The subject property is located on a pad lower than the street level, which is on approximately the same elevation level as the developed properties to the north and A-140 south. The properties east of the subject lot are approximately 15 to 20 feet lower than the subject pad level, and the properties to the west across Knoll View Drive are approximately 20 to 47 feet higher. Based upon a review of the area, Staff found that this tract was developed in order to take advantage of the expansive easterly views consisting of: the LA City basin, Vincent Thomas Bridge, the San Pedro and Long Beach harbor areas, Pacific Ocean and shoreline, and the distant San Gabriel and Santa Ana Mountains. As such, the terracing of the lots, as well as the design and orientation of the existing residences in the neighborhood has resulted in viewing areas from the lots looking over the other downslope residences and properties with mostly unobstructed views. Therefore, in assessing view impacts potentially caused by the proposed project, Staff conducted a view assessment from the properties located west of the subject property, which includes: 29839, 29841, 29845, 29857 and 29865 Knoll View Drive. In conducting site visits and speaking with the property owners whose properties look over the subject lot, Staff found that the proposed portion of the new residence above 16 feet would not significantly impair the views from these properties. Due to these residences being significantly higher than the pad level of the subject lot, the upslope properties to the west would look over the proposed residence towards the protected views previously noted. While the proposed new residence is clearly visible from these upslope properties, the 2"d -story would only block the views of residences or buildings and foliage located down the hillside, which are not protected views and do not significantly impair their viewing areas. Therefore, the proposed new structure does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel and this finding can be adopted. 5. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is determined not to be significant, the proposed new structure that is above 16' in height or addition to an existing structure that is above 16' in height Is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view; As described in finding No. 4 above, there is view impairment from the viewing areas of upslope residences to the west of the subject lot, but the view impact was determined not to be significant. Specifically, Staff found that the only view impairment would be to unprotected portions of the developed hillside below. However, Staff belleves that the portion of the new residence above 16 feet is designed and situated in a manner which reasonably minimizes impairment to views, as the proposed residence is situated as close the front of the lot as possible, which allows a better angle over the proposed residence from the viewing areas of the upslope lots than if the proposed structure was pushed out towards the back of the lot and more into the viewing angle. Further, the proposed pad of the lot is at a significantly lower level than the upslope lots, and the proposed height of the new residence appears to match that of the neighboring property's 2 -story residences. Therefore, this finding can be adopted. 6. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structure that is above 16' in height or addition to a structure that Is above 16' 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 16' in height; As evidenced in findings No. 4 and No. 5, given that there is no significant view impairment caused by the proposal, Staff finds that there will be no significant cumulative view impairment. When considering cumulative view impairment, it should be noted that the neighboring lots A-141 located directly north and south of the subject lot have been constructed with 2 -story residences on pad levels that appears to be at the relatively same elevation as that of the subject lot. As these structures appear to be at the same height as that of the subject project, Staff finds that these neighboring structures cause the same minimal view impairment that Staff finds will be caused by the subject project. Further, If either of these properties were to propose 2"d -story additions expanding the width of the existing residence similar to that of the proposed residence, as structures appear to be below the viewing areas of the upslope residences that look over their properties, no additional view impairment would be considered significant. Therefore, this finding can be adopted. 7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements; The proposed new structure meets all the code requirements including, but not limited to setbacks, lot coverage, landscaping and enclosed parking. As the proposed residence measures more than 5,000 square feet in size, the project includes a required 3 -car garage with a 25 foot turning radius for the in -direct access. Although the driveway proposed to access the 3 -car garage is contingent upon approval of a Grading Permit, and the proposed setbacks, spacing and lot coverage will be assessed in the next section of this report, the proposed 2 - story residence does not require the approval of any additional applications. As such, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. 8. The proposed structure Is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character; Neighborhood Compatibility is achieved when a new home is designed in a manner that blends in with the characteristics of the immediate neighborhood. The "character" of a neighborhood is defined in the City's Development Code as the following: architectural style, mass and bulk, height, number of stories, roof design, scale, orientation, setbacks, open space, texture, color, and building materials. The table below compares the 20 -closest homes in the immediate neighborhood to the subject property. The structure size indicated in the table includes the primary structure, garage and other enclosed accessory structures. 29806 Knoll View Drive 14,091 3.191 2 1977 29815 Knoll View Drive 18,252 3,260 2 1967 29816 Knoll View Drive 13,231 3,360 2 1967 29823 Knoll View Drive 17,801 3,157 1 1967 29826 Knoll View Drive 17558 3.542 2 1970 29839 Knoll View Drive 15,857 2,790 1 1970 29840 Knoll View Drive 15,680 3,320 2 1970 29841 Knoll View Drive 24,140 5,360 2 1975 29844 Knoll View Drive _ 23,529 3,460 2 1967 29845 Knoll View Drive 18,659 3,187 1 1973 29848 Knoll View Drive 15,731 2,760 1 1969 29857 Knoll View Drive 16,717 2,760 1 1 1966 A-142 29865 Knoll View Drive 16,126 2,960 2 1967 29866 Knoll View Drive 13,661 3,360 2 1971 29868 Knoll View Drive 15,842 2,877 1 1971 29870 Knoll View Drive 37,680 3,740 2 1973 29872 Knoll View Drive 15,766 2,335 1 1967 29897 Knoll View Drive 14,033 2,820 1 1966 29939 Knoll View Drive 14,012 3,460 1 1971 29949 Knoll View Drive 13,170 2,830 1 1968 AVERAGE 17,577 3,226 2 Lot 7 on Knoll View existing proposed 15,351 n/a 5,597 n/a 2 Bulk and Mass, Number of Stories, and Scale The proposed project is a new 2 -story residence in a neighborhood of both 1- and 2 -story single-family residences built on pads along the hillside. As seen from the table above, the proposed structure size will be larger than the average size of other residences as well as the largest residence within the immediate neighborhood. While the proposed residence is located on a pad approximately 20 feet below the street level, and grading is proposed at the front of the residence to raise the grade level of the front yard which may partially reduce the height of the residence as seen from the street, Staff finds that the large size proposed results in a structure that appears to be out of scale with the surrounding area. In comparing the proposed structure to the neighboring lots which have similar site conditions, notably a pad level that is lower than Knoll View Drive and a steep slope in the front yard area, Staff found the proposed project's silhouette to appear bulky and massive. While not necessarily evident when viewed directly from in front of the property on the street, when viewed from the adjacent parcels or an angle driving up or down Knoll View Drive, the proposed new residence appears both much wider and deeper than the other developed residences. Although there is another residence in the area, located at 29841 Knoll View Drive, that is also 2 -stories and is only slightly smaller in overall size (at 5,360 square feet), this other residence is located upslope of Knoll View Drive, and designed to blend in to the hillside in a manner that minimizes the apparent size and scale. The proposed project does not do that, as the structure appears to maximize the buildable area of the lot, which is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Staff believes additional modifications could be made to the 2nd -story, including setting back the 2"d -story footprint from the 1" -story footprint, which would minimize the overall appearance of the structure's perceived bulk and mass. Architectural Style, Roof Design, Texture, Color, and Building Materials There are a variety of architectural styles within the immediate neighborhood, ranging from California bungalow to Spanish and Mediterranean. The proposed new residence is to be constructed with a Spanish architectural style, consisting of a white stucco fagade, a gable - design with a red the roof, arched porch openings and balconies. In a survey of neighboring properties, Staff saw that there were several residences located on the east side of Knoll View Drive with similar designs. These neighboring residences had comparable color and architectural features to that of the proposed residence, with similar use of gable roofs, A-143 balconies and roof decks, and outdoor patios. Similarly, most of the neighboring residences are built with materials that have both a color scheme and texture that matches closely to that of the proposed residence design. As such, Staff finds that the proposed architectural style to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Setbacks and Oven Space The proposed residence will meet or exceed all of the required property line setbacks and open space requirements for lots created prior to City incorporation. The structure is proposed to exceed the required 20'-0" front setback, measuring 35'-0" from the front property line. The proposed interior side setbacks for the new residence measure 7'-6" from the northern side property line and 5'-0" from the southern side property line, which meet or exceed the required minimum 5'-0" setback. The rear of the residence measures 40'-0" from the rear property line, which exceeds the required 15'-0" rear setback requirement. When Staff compared the setbacks of the proposed project with that of the neighboring properties in aerial photos, Staff found that most properties in the area did have similar setbacks to that of the proposed project. Many of the existing residences in the neighborhood have small side yard setbacks, with either similar or small front and rear yard setbacks than that of the proposed project. Similarly, the resulting 40% lot coverage proposed for the subject property, including the new driveway, residence and garage, and rear yard improvements, does not appear to be much different when compared to the immediate neighborhood. Although the proposed 40% lot coverage is the maximum amount allowable for the RS -2 Zoning district, aerial photos show that most the of the lots in the immediate area appear to also be built with structure footprints and areas of driveway and hardscape that dominate similar portions of their respective lots. Although aerial photos indicate similar spacing and lot coverage as that of the subject property, when observing the area from Knoll View Drive, Staff observed the subject property is much more visible from the street than most of the other properties, as there is existing foliage and differences in grade between properties which minimize the small setbacks and large amounts of lot coverage. While the proposed project, as seen from Knoll View Drive, appears to have smaller setbacks and large lot coverage, Staff feels that the proposed setbacks and resulting open space is compatible with other properties in the immediate neighborhood. If the applicant were to increase the setbacks and open -space between structures, though, this would help in addressing Staffs concerns regarding the bulk and mass of the project noted above. Due to the bulky and massive proposed new residence, Staff finds that the proposed project is not compatible with the immediate neighboring character and this finding cannot be adopted. 9. The proposed new structure that is above 16' in height or addition to an existing structure that Is above 16' in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. Staff believes that the portion of the structure above 16 -feet will not result in unreasonable infringement of privacy of the abutting residences. Although there are several balconies and multiple windows proposed along the sides and rear of the new 2" `'-story, Staff believes existing conditions of the abutting properties will result in no changes to their privacy. The property to the south, 29866 Knoll View Drive, has a driveway in the rear yard and a pool in the southern side yard, and Staff believes there will be no infringement of privacy caused to this property. The rear yard of the property to the north, 29840 Knoll View Drive, can be seen currently from both Knoll View Drive and the private driveway running between the subject lot and this northern A-144 lot, resulting in no more loss to privacy than what already exists. As proposed, the new residence will measure 40'-0" from the rear property line, which appears to be the same as that of the neighboring property at 29866 Knoll View. There is an existing hedge running along the rear property lines of these properties, providing a natural barrier that allows privacy to the downslope lots. While a new residence will result in impacts to the neighbors more than a vacant lot, Staff believes that the proposed impacts are no different than what is already experienced by the other existing structures in the area. As such, Staff believes that this finding can be adopted. Based upon the discussion above, Staff finds that 8 of the required 9 height variation findings can be adopted. Due to the large size of the property that results in a bulky and massive appearance, though, Staff finds that the proposed project is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood and therefore recommends that the proposed height variation permit be denied. Grading Permit The purpose of a grading permit is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare while preserving the natural character of an area, ensuring development occurs in a manner harmonious with adjacent land. The proposed major grading application is requesting 712 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the construction of the new split-level single-family residence, driveway and front courtyard area, consisting of 179 cubic yards of cut and 533 cubic yards of fill. In considering a grading permit, Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040(E) requires a major grading application to be assessed against 9 criteria (in bold) in reference to the property and project under consideration. 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The subject property is located in a residential area designated by the City's Zoning Map as a RS -2 zoning district. According to the City's General Plan and the Development Code, a single- family residence is classified as a permitted primary use in the RS Zoning District. As proposed, the current pad lot is proposing 712 cubic yards of total grading to construct a new 2 -story single-family residence. Of the 712 cubic yards, 239 cubic yards are proposed for leveling of the property and excavation of a new pool and spa. Staff finds that the 239 cubic yards of grading is not uncommon for new construction on vacant lots. On the northern side of the property, a proposed 1,270 square foot driveway and parking area will allow direct access from Knoll View Drive to the 3 -car garage located on the upper level of the new residence, involving 326 cubic yards of fill. As the 326 cubic yards of fill is on an existing extreme slope, and there is an existing driveway adjacent to the location of the new proposed driveway which can provide access to the pad level of the lot, Staff believes the proposed grading to be excessive for what is necessary to provide access to the lot. According to the applicant, a new driveway for the subject lot is needed to be created as permission to use the existing driveway along the northern side of the property could not be obtained from the two flag lot properties which currently use the driveway. As written documentation of the neighbor's refusal to allow the applicant use of the existing driveway could not be supplied by the applicant to Staff, Staff tried contacting the two flag lot owners to clarify their position on the matter. In response, the attorney representing the property owners of 29848 Knoll View Drive e-mailed Staff (attached) saying that the property owners would not object to the use of the existing driveway, "as long as the [subject property] owner agrees to join in maintaining the driveway." A A-145 subsequent e-mail from the attorney also stated that in previous conversations with the applicant, his clients offered to enter into a shared -use agreement for use of the driveway, but the agreement was never signed. Therefore, unless the applicant provides documentation to Staff from the adjoining property owners denying use of the existing shared driveway, Staff believes that the applicant has the means to access the subject property through the existing driveway. which would make the grading associated with the proposed new driveway unnecessary. Given the absence of this documentation, Staff finds the grading for the new driveway to be excessive. In addition to the new driveway, 147 cubic yards of fill is proposed to create a new courtyard area at the front of the residence, behind the proposed garage. Accessed via on -grade steps descending 10 feet from the street level down the extreme slope, the proposed courtyard would be at relatively the same elevation level as the driveway and would provide approximately 612 square feet of usable front yard area, with a proposed outdoor fireplace at the rear of the garage facing the courtyard. Staff finds the proposed grading associated with the courtyard to also be excessive and unnecessary for the permitted use of the lot. While the extreme slope at the front of the property between the street and the pad level minimizes the use of the property in this area, the property is proposed to be designed with a large, usable rear yard area that requires a minimal amount of cut and fill, and no retaining walls, for the use of the property owners. A survey of the immediate area found there are four other similar neighboring lots which had developed pad lots located downslope of the street: 29826, 29840, 29866, and 29872 Knoll View Drive, which are all located on the east side of the street. Staff observed that none of these properties had created usable front yard areas, with three of the lots using stairs and bridges to provide access to the front of the property, and only small, downslope retaining walls that were not easily visible from the street that were used to maintain the slope. Another lot, 29816 Knoll View Drive, has a driveway on the slope that provides access between the direct - access garage and the street. Outside of the driveway, the property has a descending slope from the street, and stairs are used to access the main residence, which is entered through a lower level. Based upon the existing conditions of the other properties, Staff believes that there are other means to provide access to the front of the residence that would not result in excessive grading to the front of the property and potentially change the character of the area. Therefore, Staff believes that the majority of the proposed grading associated with this project is not considered necessary and is excessive for the permitted primary use of the lot, and this criterion cannot be met. 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the "viewing area" of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuance to Section 17.02.040(B) of this title, is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same location of the lot if measured from the preconstruction (existing) grade. As concluded in the findings of the Height Variation analysis above, Staff believes that the new residence will not significantly impair the view from the viewing area of another property. While the majority of the proposed grading is for the creation of a new driveway, this grading is not under the proposed structure, which could be built at its proposed height on the property with minimal grading, all of which would not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with A-146 nor the views from the viewing area of a neighboring property. As such, this criterion can be met. 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The existing vacant lot was originally created as part of the Tract 27142, with an extreme slope between the street and the flat portion of the lot. Staff found that there are other neighboring lots east of Knoll View Drive with similar topography. As previously described, these neighboring lots have mostly maintained the slope between the residence and street, with stairs and bridges used to access the front of these properties and retaining walls terracing the slope. As proposed, the subject lot will be accessed via a new driveway or dual staircases descending down the slope to a new courtyard created by fill. Staff believes that the multiple retaining walls proposed for the driveway and the new courtyard area interrupt the natural contours of the front yard slope and result in an unnatural finished grade. Specifically proposed, there are 7 different retaining walls supporting the new driveway and courtyard, with many of these retaining walls measuring up to 5 feet in retention. While the use of multiple retaining walls to create terraces is common within the neighborhood, these proposed retaining walls are perpendicular to the existing downslope and do not look to blend with the existing slope nor appear to be similar to any other properties in the area. As such, Staff believes that the grading does not minimize the disturbances to the natural contours of the site and the finished contours are not reasonably natural. As such, this criterion cannot be met. 4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope Into the natural topography. As indicated above, the proposed grading for the new driveway and courtyard will significantly atter the existing downslope at the front of the property between the street and lower pad level. While both the driveway and courtyard are located 10 feet below the street, with a staircase proposed to be built into the existing slope, the creation of flat, usable front yard areas utilizing multiple retaining walls that align perpendicular to the street and slope do not blend with the existing topography. Staff acknowledges that the applicant has made attempts to minimize the fill proposed to be added to increase the grade level at the front of the property, however Staff continues to find that due to the excessive amount of grade being added, the retaining walls create new slopes or contours on the property that do not appear to be natural nor can be found on any of the neighboring properties with similar site conditions. Thus, this criterion cannot be met. 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The proposed grading is for a new 2 -story single-family residence, with a new driveway between the street and 3 -car garage, a new front courtyard area, and developed rear yard area consisting of hardscape, a BBQ with cover, and a new pool and spa. Based upon the findings for neighboring compatibility described in the Height Variation section of this report, Staff found that the proposed new structure is too massive and bulky to be considered compatible with the immediate neighborhood. While the majority of the bulk and mass concerns are directed at the main structure, which is constructed on the pad portion of the lot, the proposed new driveway and associated retaining walls to support the driveway further add to the structure's perceived A-147 mass. Also, while in -direct access driveways off Knoll View Drive are not uncommon, the proposed grading for the new driveway, courtyard area and associated retaining walls was not found on any of the other similar lots along Knoll View Drive, and the presence of an existing driveway located adjacent to the property potentially allows for access of the lot without the additional grading for a new driveway. Further, although a driveway is necessary to access the garage for a property, Staff found that it is not common for two separate driveways on different properties to be located close together. Instead, it is more commonly found that few driveways serve multiple properties, which results in minimal driveways along Knoll View Drive. Of the properties that did have their own driveways, there was at least 20 feet between the two closest driveways with noticeable foliage to provide a significant barrier between the two properties, rather than the 18" of separation proposed between the new and existing driveways, with no indication of a foliage barrier. As such, this criterion cannot be met. 6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas. The proposed project is not part of a new residential tract. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to the proposed project. 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. The proposed grading involves 326 cubic yards of fill for the creation of a new driveway along Knoll View Drive and 147 cubic yards of fill for a new courtyard area. As was noted previously in this report, there is an existing driveway to the north of the subject property which serves two developed flag lots located east of the subject lot, and provides access to the existing pad level of the subject lot. If this driveway were to utilized alternatively to the new driveway, and the courtyard area were to be eliminated, this would minimize the grading conducted on the extreme slope in the front yard as well as reduce the need for the multiple and tall retaining walls necessary for the support of the proposed fill. As such, Staff believes that the proposed grading does not utilize existing street designs and improvement to minimize grading, and this criterion cannot be met. 8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. The only existing landscaping on the property is a row of twisted juniper trees running along the northern property line that would be removed for the grading of the new driveway area. The rest of the property is dirt and grass. These existing trees provide a natural barrier, screening the existing driveway abutting the subject property. While Staff has received comments from residents stating that they would prefer to see these trees remain, Staff finds that the removal of the foliage would not be excessive as new similar foliage could be installed post -construction. Therefore, this finding can be made. USE 9. The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, creation of now slopes, heights of retaining walls, and maximum driveway steepness. Municipal Code Section 17.76.040(E)(9) establishes additional grading criteria. The table below summarizes the proposed project's consistency with these criteria. A-149 011115 �104*01- NMI :&maw X11 Permitted on vacant lots, created prior to Construction on slopes Construction on the City's incorporation, based upon a over 35% for lot created slopes over 35% finding that the grading will not threaten prior to 1973 Steepness public health, safety and welfare (consistent) f I 7.76.040(12)(9)(a)] 35% steepness, unless next to a 46% steep slope in the Maximum finished driveway where 67% steepness is southern side area slopes permitted (Not consistent) 17.76.040E 9) b) 5' depth, unless based upon a finding that unusual topography, soil conditions, Maximum depth of cut previous grading or other circumstances 11' depth of fill or fill make such grading reasonable and (Not Consistent) necessary 17.76.040E 9 c ] Restricted grading No grading on slopes over 50% Grading on slope more steepness than 50% areas 17.76.040E 9 d Not consistent) One 8' -tall upslope wall Five 5' -tall or less upslope [I 7.76.040(E)(9)(e)(i)] walls Not consistent) One 31/2' -tall downslope wall No downslope walls 17.76.040E 9 e ii ] One 3Y2' -tall up- or downslope wall in 5' -tall upslope wall in side each side yard yard Retaining Walls 17.76.040E 9 e iii Not consistent)_ One 5' -tall up- or downslope wall Two 5' -tall downslope adjacent to driveway walls adjacent to the [1 7.76.040(E)(9)(e)(iv)] driveway Not Consistent) Retaining walls within building footprint Retaining walls up to 5' - may exceed 8' 10" tall within building [1 7.76.040(E)(9)(e)(v)] (consistent) 20% maximum slope permitted, with a 15% Driveway slope single 10 -long section up to 22% (consistent) 11 7.76.040(E)(9)(f)(i)] Driveways 67% slopes permitted adjacent to Slopes adjacent to the driveways driveway not greater than [1 7.76.040(E)(9)(f)(li)] 60% (consistent) A-149 As noted in the table, the proposed grading and associated retaining walls are not consistent with six of the required criteria for grading on slopes, creation of new slopes and heights of retaining walls. The Development Code Section 17.76.040(E)(10) allows for deviations to the criteria upon the following additional exception finds be made: a. The criteria of subsection (E)(1) through (E)(8) of this section are satisfied; As described above, Staff found that five of the eight criteria for grading could not be made, as the proposed grading is excessive for what is necessary for the development of the lot, disturbs the natural contours and does not proposed reasonably natural finished contours, does not preserve the natural topographic features of the lot, and does not utilize street design or improvements harmonious with the neighborhood. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. b. The approval Is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of this section; The purposes set forth in the Grading section of the Development Code involves "ensuring that the development of each parcel of land [.. J occurs in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands so as to minimize problems of flooding, drainage j...] and similar hazards, and to maintain the visual continuity of hill and valley without unsightly continuous benching of buildable sites." As described throughout this report, Staff has concern that the proposed grading for the new driveway and courtyard area is excessive and disturbs the natural contours of the property, and is out of character from what is found in the neighborhood. Further, Staff believes that the proposed grading is not harmonious with the adjacent lands and does not maintain the visual continuity of the hillside community. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. c. Departure from the standards In subsection (E)(9) of this section will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; Staff believes that departure from the standards of the Grading section will constitute a special privilege. The grading associated with the new driveway and courtyard areas, and the associated retaining walls, are not features commonly seen among the other properties in the vicinity. Most of the other properties with similar site conditions have maintained the downslope in the front yard, utilizing stairs and bridges to access the front of the residence and use of a shared driveway to access the pad level of the property where the garage is located. By allowing grading to create a new driveway and usable front yard area that the other properties downslope of Knoll View Drive do not have, Staff finds that this would be a special privilege to the subject property that is not necessary. Therefore, this finding cannot be made. d. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) of this section will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property; Any of the proposed grading activity will not be detrimental to the public safety or to the surrounding properties since the new residence will be reviewed, inspected and approved by the Building and Safety Division. The project would be required to comply with all safety standards of the Uniform Building Code, go through draining review, and be inspected to meet the recommendations contained in the approved geotechnical report. Therefore, this finding can be made. A-150 e. Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all' owners of property adjacent to the subject property. Public notification to all adjacent property owners is required for approval of a major grading application whenever it is necessary to make the exception findings under RPVDC Section 17.76.040(E)(10). As Staff is unable to make the additional findings necessary for the proposed grading, this finding is not applicable. Based upon the analysis above, Staff recommends denial of the requested grading permit application. Site Plan Review Site Plan Review is required for the detached accessory structures and pool/spa proposed in the rear yard of the proposed project. As proposed, the detached patio cover over the new BBQ measures 12'-0" tall, which meets the maximum height requirement for detached accessory structures. Further, it measures 17'-0" from the rear property line and over 40 feet from both side property lines; exceeding the minimum setback requirement. The proposed pool and spa measures 15'-0" from the rear property line and 6-0" from the southern side property line, with the pool equipment proposed adjacent to the south-east comer of the proposed residence, and measuring 5'-0" from the southern side property line, thereby meeting or exceeding all required property line setbacks. A minimum 5'-0" tall fence will enclose the rear yard area, with self - latching gates. It should also be noted that all improvements proposed within the front yard setback area, including new pilasters and fences, are proposed to not exceed the maximum 3'- 6" tall height limit for this area. Upon approval of a residence, Staff would recommend approval of these structures and would apply appropriate Conditions of Approval as warranted. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Correspondence Staff has received five items of correspondence in regards to the proposed project. The first letter, sent by Mary Faith Sipprell of 30048 Knoll View Drive, wrote with concern to the size and height of the proposed new residence. She finds the proposed structure will "stand out like a sore thumb" in the neighborhood and will block the views she enjoys when walking along Knoll View Drive. Tamara Vollmer, property owner of 29840 Knoll View Drive, wrote in opposition to the proposed project. Owning the property located directly north of the subject lot, Ms. Vollmer believes that the setbacks for the structure are too small and the size of the structure too large for the lot, affecting what landscape can be installed and privacy between the properties. She feels that the project can be redesigned to be more compatible with the neighborhood with attention made to the setbacks and size of the proposed residence. Staff visited Ms. Vollmer's property and found that the proposed project is at the far right periphery of the main viewing area, and would not significantly impair her view. However, as the rear yard of per property is located at a lower elevation than that of the subject property, Staff did find that the proposed project appeared to loom over her property in a way that raised Staffs concern regarding bulk and mass of the project. A-151 Gina Nader, property owner at 29839 Knoll View Drive, wrote with similar concerns of the size and scale of the proposed residence, noting that the silhouette makes the proposed construction appear larger than the height and lot coverage proposed. Mrs. Nader also notes concern to view obstruction caused by the proposed project. Staff visited the property at 29839 Knoll View Drive and determined that the main living area at the front of the house had the best and more important view. From this viewing area, Staff saw the proposed project is visible but at the bottom, right side of the viewing area, and would only block views of the foliage and other residences on the hillside, not of the protected views. While Staff can understand the concern with view impairment, the driveway and garage areas are not protected view areas. As a fourth item, during site visits to the neighborhood Staff was given two photos by Sonyan and Robert Szatkowski, taken from their residence at 29866 Knoll View Drive. In a subsequent e-mail received by Staff, Mr. and Mrs. Szatkowski have several issues with the proposed project, including the proximity of the new residence to their residence which they feel crowds the property in a way different from the neighborhood and affects their privacy. Further, they note that the new residence would block their views from the master bathroom bay window located along the north side of the residence. In visiting the property, Staff observed that there would be view impairment, but found that the view from the living room area which has the best and most important view would not be impacted. Lastly, their e-mail noted concerns regarding the grading and development of the property causing damage to their existing pool and foundation. It should be noted that the project has received conceptual geological approval by the City's geological consultant and all engineering, drainage and slope stability associated with proposed development of the site will be thoroughly reviewed prior to building permit issuance through the City's Building Division. Lastly, a letter was received from Marshall A. Rutter, representing Maynard and Lavon Sorenson of 29848 Knoll View Drive. According to Mr. Rutter's letter, Mr. and Mrs. Sorenson find the project to be "a hulking McMansion that is totally out of proportion to the immediate neighborhood, spoiling the lovely ambience of the area." The letter also expressed concerns with drainage, grading, and soil stability, requesting that the current project be denied and "that any residence to be approved for this site must be lower, occupy less of the site, not interfere with the trees along the driveway." Staff spoke with Mr. Rutter regarding the use of the driveway that is used by both the Sorensons (at 29848 Knoll View Drive) and the property owners of 29844 Knoll View Drive. Subsequently, several e-mails were received from Mr. Rutter stating that the Sorensons would not object to the use of the driveway, provided that the applicant agreed "to join in maintaining the driveway." Mr. Rutter also provided comments regarding the easement rights allowed to the applicant, and that permission was not needed for use of the driveway, per the title report. A title report had not been submitted by the applicant or Mr. Rutter at the writing of this report. In addition to the letters received, Staff also received two phone calls. One phone call conversation was with Maurice Lippmann, homeowner of 29857 Knoll View Drive, who expressed that the project in no way impacted his view from his residence, but that he thought that the project was too large and was disappointed that the twisted juniper trees would be removed as part of construction. Staff also spoke on the phone with Yvetta Williams, owner of 29841 Knoll View Drive. Mrs. Williams said that her view would not be impacted by the proposed project but felt that the project was too big. A-152 Foliage Analvsis A foliage analysis conducted by Staff revealed that there is no existing foliage which significantly impairs the protected view from any surrounding properties. CONCLUSION Based upon the discussion and evidence above, Staff is unable to make all of the required findings necessary for approval of a Height Variation and Grading Permit for the proposed new single-family residence. As such, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_, denying, without prejudice, a request for a Height Variation, Grading and Site Plan Review permit. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives to Staffs recommendation are available for the Planning Commission to consider: 1) Deny, with prejudice, Case No. ZON2011-00280 as designed and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution for consideration at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting; or, 2) Approve Case No. ZON2011-00280 as designed, and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution and conditions for consideration at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting; or, 3) Continue the public hearing to a date certain in order to allow the applicant time to redesign the project, and obtain permission from the applicant for a 90 -day extension from the action deadline in order to allow for the continuance of the public hearing. Attachments: • P.C. Resolution No. 2013- • Letter from Mary Faith Sipprell, dated November 21, 2013 • Letter from Tamera Vollmer, dated November 22, 2013 • E-mail and photos from Gina Nader, dated November 22, 2013 • E-mail and photos from Robert & Sonya Szatkowski, dated December 3, 2013 • Letter from Marshall A. Rutter, submitted December 3, 2013 • E-mails received from Marshall A. Rutter, dated December 3, 2013 • Project Plans A-153 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 20113- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING AND SITE PLAN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A NEW 5,997 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH A TOTAL OF 712 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING, ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT (APN 7566-006-018) (CASE NO. ZON2011-00280). WHEREAS, on April 21, 1965, Tract Map 27142 was recorded with the County of Los Angeles, thereby creating the subject property along with the other properties within the Miraleste Hills community; and, WHEREAS, on October 10, 2011, an application was submitted requesting Height Variation, Grading and Site Plan Review approval for the construction of a new 6,105 square foot, 2 -story single-family residence and garage on the existing vacant lot, including 762 cubic yards of grading; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2011, the application was deemed incomplete; and, WHEREAS, after the submittal of additional information and revised plans reducing the scale of the project and proposed grading, the applicant submitted the last remaining information on October 29, 2013 and November 1, 2013; and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2013, Staff deemed the project complete; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. Seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. Seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that ZON2011-00280 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303) since the project involves the construction of a new residence on a legally subdivided lot; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed new residence is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as it was found that the proposed residence size is out of scale and appears bulky and massive compared to the other properties in the immediate neighborhood. Section 2: The proposed grading is excessive for what is necessary for the lot, as fill is proposed on an existing extreme slope in the front yard area for a new courtyard that creates A-154 an usable front yard area that is not commonly found in the surrounding area and where there is sufficient usable flat area in the rear yard of the subject property. Section 3: The proposed grading does not minimize disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are not reasonably natural, as the multiple retaining walls proposed for the new courtyard area interrupt the natural contours of the front yard slope, which do not look to blend with the existing slope nor appear to be similar to any other properties in the area. ,Section 4: The proposed grading does not take into account the preservation of natural topographic features, as the excessive amount of grade being added results in retaining walls that create new slopes or contours on the property that do not appear to be natural nor can be found on any of the neighboring properties with similar site conditions. Section 5: The proposed grading is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as the courtyard area and associated retaining walls were not found on any of the other similar lots along Knoll View Drive. Section 6: The proposed grading does not conform to the City's standards for grading on slopes, as the project would result in a slope steepness exceeding 35%, a maximum depth of fill over five feet in depth, grading on slopes over 50% steepness, more than one upslope retaining wall, and more than one retaining wall adjacent to the driveway. The proposed grading cannot deviate from these criteria, as the proposed grading is not harmonious with the adjacent lands and does not maintain the visual continuity of the hillside community. Further, the grading for the courtyard areas, and the associated retaining walls, are not features commonly seen among the other properties in the vicinity, which would be a grant of special privilege. Section 7: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Monday, January 6, 2014. A $2,275 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on January 6, 2014. Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Reports, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, without prejudice, Case No. ZON2011-00280 for a Height Variation, Grading and Site Plan Review Permit. A-155 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: RECUSALS: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: David Emenhiser, Chairman Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director, and, Secretary of the Planning Commission A-156 Abigal Harwell Assistant Planner Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Dear Abigal. Re: Case No. ZON2011-00280(GR,HV) I am a resident of Knollview Drive and have lived at 30048 for t wenty six years. I am dismayed at the size and height of the proposed home under consideration. It is not at all in keeping with the surrounding homes and ambiance of the neighborhood. It blocks out the view from the street and as a daily walker that is important to me. Of course, the owner of the property has a right to build a home but I believe It should be In keeping with the rest of the area so It does not stand out like a sore thumb.(*We already have one of those). Sincerely, 04 �. Me with Slpprell W I RECEIVED NOV 21 2013 '00MMUNnY DEWLppMS, DEPARTMENT A-157 Assistant Planner Abigail Harwell City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. R.P.V CA 90275-5391 RE: Case No. ZON2011-00280 (GR, HV) Location. APN 7566-006-018 ( Thomas Guide 823-g4) Owner: Marshal Esfahan Applicant: Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design, Inc Dear Ms. Harwell, November 22, 2013 REcefto 'VD co,�u�� 22 2013 M oIt:V -,--PARPM,MopM,-,Atr In response to the Notice from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes dated November 7' 2013, this is my opposition to the cunvnt plans submitted for the proposed construction on Knoll View Dr.. Please consider this a request that the city not approvo this building plan as described without a reduction in the size of the structure to allow for privacy and compatibility to the existing neighborhood and adjacent home owners. My immediate concern is the size of the structure, at 5,597 sq $ with minimal set backs from property line to property line on a lot that appears proportionately too small to accommodate a dwelling of this size. The structtrre is much larger in proportion to the lot size and more obvious than any of the surrounding homes, and is not compatible with the neighborhood. The building will have little green space, or privacy buffer around it to protect and respect the closest neighboring homes. The plans for a 5,597 sq. & dwelling appear unrealistic from the silhouette erected, because the parcel, or the buildable portion of the lot is to sma1L From the plans provided to us by the builder; the interior layout appears to be supportive of a multiple family dwelling, with two master bedrooms and multiple family and living rooms. Here again, a dwelling of this magnitude is not consistent with the existing neighborhood. My second concern is the encroachment of privacy to homes sharing the property lines. There is no consideration, in this building plan, for the immediate neighboring homeowners privacy with a building of this enormity sitting exactly on the allowable setback. In Summery. It is my opinion that the proposed single family dwelling is over sized for the parcel and needs to be redesigned and scaled to the lot size. It is necessary that the new plan ensure a respectful boundary of privacy to the immediate neighboring homes, and strive A-158 for design compatibility with the existing hillside community. Sincerely, �c vAut— Tanwa Vollmer 29640 Knoll View Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 A-159 oo.. Go 0) N CD E C to O 0 r NOW* r y f77i'tr"l�rui i� :::Tib, .r rr `� Y �, � Abigail Harwell �E Subject: FW: Comments/Concerns Regarding Case# ZON2011�00280 From: Gina Nader Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 1:39 PM To: Abigail Harwell Subject: Comments/Concems Regarding Case# ZON2011-00280 Hi Abigail, It was a pleasure meeting you this morning. Thank you for coming outl I'm going to try and send you at least one more picture. I'll try to get to you within a week; hope that's ok. Regarding the proposed construction across the street from our property (29839 Knoll View Drive), our following concerns are: 1. Seems "massive." We feel It is not compatible with the average size of most of the homes on our street and in the neighborhood. A. Looks taller than 26 feet B. Looks much larger than only 40% of the entire lot -square footage (it is very deceiving if it is). C. The height of the roof spans practically the entire length of the property, obstructing the openness of our view from our living room. 2. There are a few different areas of our lot where our view will be obstructed, though not from main rooms (especially from our driveway where we have a beautiful view of the ships coming into and leaving the harbor through the breakwater), but it just speaks to the size of the proposed home. 3. The owner has not responded to at least two collective emails (on behalf of us most affected) sent by Tammy Vollmer. This gives (us all) the impression that he disregards our concerns and will not be easy to work with nor get along with. 4. Our last, but not least( concern is that one of our good neighbors: Rob & Sonia Szatkowski, mentioned the possibility of moving if this construction goes in as currently proposed due to loss of privacy. We would not like to see them move awayl Finally, I would like to add that we totally understand the owner's right to build on his property; we don't want to be unreasonable. However, we would like the size of the proposed construction to be scaled down, even if it will be less than what he is legally allowed. My husband and I would definitely be sensitive to and willing to work with our prospective neighbors concerns if we were the owner/builder. A-164 Once again, I do appreciate you coming out to get a feel for and hear "our side!" I'll look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Gina (& Fred) Nader A-165 k0l 9 ^\� � ƒ��°\�� /\ 9 \ �»Z � ., � /�\ � C' : zy:� : k � : �� ayc. � cm >� _ ��yy �. ::� y . � A/w �� ƒ Abigail Harwell subject: FW: Comments for New Residence on Knoll View Dr From: Rob Van Dam Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 5:15 PM To: Abigail Harwell Subject: Re: Comments for New Residence on Knoll View Dr Hello Abigail, Thank you for considering our comments. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Thank you- . Robert & Sonya Szatkow°ski The following are several reasons we have for concern: 1. The house is ten feet -away from our house. a)Thls Infringes on the privacy that we've had for 12 years. When we first bought our home, it's appeal was its seclusion. b) The crowded situation deviates from the consistent pattern of the neighborhood, which currently exists. 2. The new house will completely block our views of downtown LA, along with the mountains and city landscape to the north and northeast. This breath taking view was the inspiration for our bay window, and will soon be replaced by the side of the new house, just a flaw feet away. 3. Were concerned the investment of our property will be compromised, and will show In the resale value of our home 4. We worry about the effects from digging into the grid so dose to our house. a. Our swimming pool developed a crack when they first tested the soil next door, and we wonder If more damage could result from disturbing the earth. b. We are concemed that digging out the foundation for the projected house and the swimming pool, so dose to our house, could destabilize our foundation. c. Our house may become an easy target for the animals currently living in the empty lot, when they are forced to relocate. A-169 LAW OFFICE OF MARSHALL A. RUTTER A Professional Corporation Via Mand -Delivery SEC 03 2p13 cbmmu,vlry December 2, 2013 D'1_pAn MSN opAfi r City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Attention: Assistant Planner Abigail Harwell Subject: Case No. ZON2011-00280(GR,HV) Dear Commissioners: I represent Maynard D. and Lavon Sorenson, the beneficial owners and occupants of the residence located at 29848 Knoll View Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Their residence is immediately adjacent to and down slope from the subject building site. On their behalf, I object to the request to construct a new 5,597 square foot residence on the subject lot. In short, as proposed, the residence is a hulking McMansion that is totally out of proportion to the immediate neighborhood, spoiling the lovely ambience of the area, threatening to turn RPV into another Beverly Hills. It is a potential menace to, and it would devalue, its neighbors' homes. More specifically, because the plans for this lot propose to build on or pave almost the entire building site, the Sorenson' home is threatened by potential water damage, flooding and slippage of the bank on the northeast (downhill) corner of the building site. In the past, the undeveloped site absorbed most of the rain that fell on it, but there is an open, paved swale on the east side of the site to collect excess rainwater from the site and adjacent lots. This paved swale protects the Sorensons' home from invasion by water. The proposal calls for the swale to be eliminated and replaced by underground drainage (or is a covered culvert?) connected to the city storm sewer. Such a system would not be open to the surface to collect water from the paved or roofed portion of the building site. It would collect water only on the Pasadena Office 170 South Lake Avenue, Suite 810, Pasadena, California 91101 t: 626.844.7770 h 626-8447773 Century City Office 1 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, Californla 90067-6018 1 t: 310-286-0448 f: 626.8447773 mratter(ahrutterlaw.cum I wim.rutterlaewom A-172 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Case No. ZON2011-00280 (GR,HV) December 2, 2013 Page 2 south side of the site. It will not collect water from the impervious building site, and excess water from the hard surface of the swimming pool deck and other hard surfaces may flood the down-slope home belonging to the Sorenson. Excavation of the proposed swimming pool very close to the Sorensons' property will threaten the stability of the soil and could result in slippage of the soil onto the Sorenson's property, possibly invading their home. The plans for the northeast corner of the building site seem to call for the leveling of that area. It is currently a considerable slope that is planted in ground covering juniper which are vital to prevent slippage of the sloped area into the Sorenson' driveway. An ugly 6 -foot chain link fence is proposed for the entire north, south and east boundaries of the site. The northeast boundary will impair the ability of the Sorenson to gain access to their property and garage, in particular. As the entire building site is up-slope from the Sorenson' home, and because the proposed residence is massive and high, the Sorensons will essentially have the new owners looking directly into their house, pool and yard from above, a definite privacy issue. The new residence would obliterate the view uphill between it and the neighbors to its northwest and southwest, as the plans provide for the minimum side -yard setback of b feet - Access to the Sorensons' home from Knoll View Drive is by a sloped driveway to the north of the proposed building site. A city storm drain lies below the driveway, as do the water line and utility boxes. To provide stability to the steep slope between the driveway and the building site, a row of 18 low juniper trees were planted within the Sorenson' property line (ten feet from the mid -line of the driveway). Despite a statement to the contrary by their lawyer, the owners of the building site have recently stated that they intend to remove the trees, which they have no right to do. Even if they had the right to remove them, the driveway and storm drain would be seriously jeopardized by their removal. These trees protect the driveway from wind and water erosion and stabilize the driveway from the weight and vibration of vehicles, including weekly trash removal, delivery trucks, and heavy city and county maintenance vehicles, as well as provide aesthetic value. A-173 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Case No. ZON2011-00280 (GR,HV) December 2, 2013 Page 3 The plans for the building site call for construction on a new driveway adjacent and south of the existing driveway used by the Sorensons and their neighbors to the north. The slope of the new driveway is steeper than the existing driveway. There is no apparent plan for a retaining wall to preserve the stability of the existing driveway. This is a fatal flaw in the plans. On behalf of the Sorensons, I request that the current proposal be rejected and that any residence to be approved for this site must be lower, occupy less of the gibe, not interfere with the trees along the driveway and Sorenson' side of the swale, and retain or improve the Swale along the eastern side of the site so that the Sorensons are not threatened by water damage or slippage on the upslope side of their property. Respectfully submitted, 1 � 1 A 1, j ' , Marshall A. Rutter MAR:cw A-174 Abigail Harwell From: Marshall Rutter <mrutter@ruttedaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:00 PM To: Abigail Harwell Subject: Case No. ZON2011-00380(GR, HV) Abigail: I have spoken with Mr. Sorenson about whether he objects to the Owner's using the driveway to the north of the building site to gain access to the site. He does not, so long as the Owner agrees to join in maintaining the driveway. I obtained a title report several years ago, and, to the best of Mr. Sorenson's and my recollection, it provides the owner of building site access to the site over that driveway. I wanted to get this message to you as soon as feasible, so I am doing so before being able to locate the title report. I will send it to you as soon as I locate it. I left my former firm several years ago, and I am working to integrate all old and new files, as the occasion arises. Marshall Rutter Attorney for Maynard D. and Lavon Sorenson Marshall A. Rutter Law Office of Marshall A. Rutter A Professional Corporation Eastside Office: Westside OfJlce: 70 S. Lake Avenue 10100 Santa Monka Boulevard Suite B10 Suite 300 Pasadena, CA 91101 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (t) (626) 8d4-7770 (t) (310) 286-0448 (f) (626) 844-7773 (f) ( 626) 8447773 www,mtterhrw.coin Caution: Although this material may contain a discussion of tax matters, it does not comply with the Government's highly technical requirements for a formal legal opinion; consequently, it is not Intended to be used and, Indeed, it cannot be used to avoid a tax penalty. NOTICE: The contents of this message and/or its attachments may be protected by law by the attorney-cllent privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or other privileges. If you are not the Intended recipient of this message, please forward a copy to mrutter rutterlaw.com and delete the message and its attachments from your computer. Thank you. A-175 Abigail Harwell From: Marshall Rutter <mrutter@rutterlaw.com> Sent Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:43 PM To: Abigail Harwell Subject: Case No. ZON2011-00280 Abigail: For your information, Mr. Esfahani has been talking about building on the building site in this case for many years. By looking back at some of the earlier correspondence, I now recall that he contended he had an easement over the driveway to gain access to his lot. Mr. Sorenson had documents which contained no reference to such an easement. Mr. Sorenson later offered to agree with Mr. Esfahani to allow Mr. Esfahani that he could use the driveway to gain access. That agreement was never signed. I obtained a title report that showed that Mr. Esfahani did, Indeed, have an easement to gain access. I will attempt to locate that title report and provide it to you as soon as It has been located. Marshall Rutter Attorney for Maynard d. and Lavon Sorenson Marshall A. Rutter Law Offlce of Marshall A. Rutter A Professional Corporation Eastside Office: Westside Officer 70 S. Lake Avenue 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 810 Suite 300 PosadeM CA 91101 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (t) (626) 544-7770 (t) (310) 286 -OW (f j (626) 844-7773 (0 ( 626) 8447773 Caution: Although this material may contain a discussion of tax matters, it does not comply with the Government's highly technical requirements for a formal legal opinion; consequently, It is not intended to be used and, indeed, it cannot be used to avoid a tax penalty. NOTICE: The contents of this message and/or its attachments may be protected by law by the attomey-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please forward a copy to mrutter(a rutterlaw.com and delete the message and its attachments from your computer. Thank you. A-176 Abigail Harwell From: Marshall Rutter emrutter@rutterlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 2:56 PM To: Abigail Harwell Subject: RE: 265332 1.DOC Abigail: The first time we obtained a title report, the easement in favor of the Esfahani lot did not show up, but the title company then said it did. He doesn't need permission to use the driveway, as it's in the grant of an easement. Marshall Marshall A. Rutter Law Office of Marshall A. Rutter A Professional Corporation Eastside Office: Westside Office.- 70 ff ce:70 S. Lake Avenue 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard Su/te 810 Suite 300 Pasadena, CA 91101 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (t) (626) 844-7770 (t) (310) 286-04U (f) (626) 84a-7773 (f) ( 626) 844-7773 www.rutter1aw.com Caution: Although this material may contain a discussion of tax matters, it does not comply with the Government's highly technical requirements for a formal legal opinion, consequently, it is not intended to be used and, indeed, it cannot be used to avoid a tax penalty. NOTICE: The contents of this message and/or its attachments may be protected by law by the attomey-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please forward a copy to mrutterArutterlaww.com and delete the message and its attachments from your computer. Thank you. From: Abigail Harwell [mallto:AbgaIIH-@rov.wmi Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 2:49 PM To: Marshall Rutter Subject RE: 265332 1.DOC Hi Marshall w If you can't find the title, don't trouble yourself too much. I believe the owner of the vacant lot is aware of the easement, and that wasn't the issue. The issue lies more in obtaining agreement with the other easement holders in order to use that easement. - Abigail Harwell Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes From: Marshall Rutter[mailto:mrutter@rutterlaw.cornj Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:59 PM A-177 To: Abigail Harwell Subject: FW: 265332_1.DOC Hello again, Abigail: I still haven't located the title report, but here is a draft agreement I prepared a number of years ago in cooperation with Sidney Croft, Margus' attorney, It indicates Mr. Sorenson's willingness to allow Margus (Mr. Isfahani's company) to use the driveway. Marshall Marshall A. Rutter Law Office of Marshall A. Rutter A Professional Corporation Eastside Office: Westside Office: 70 S. Lake Avenue 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard suite 810 Suite 300 Pasadena, CA 81101 los Angeles, CA 90067 (t) (626) 844-7770 (t) (310) 286-0448 (f j (626) 844-7773 (f) ( 626) 844-7773 www.rutterlaw.com Caution: Although this material may contain a discussion of tax matters, it does not comply with the Government's highly technical requirements for a formal legal opinion; consequently, it is not Intended to be used and, indeed, it cannot be used to avoid a tax penalty. NOTICE; The contents of this message and/or its attachments may be protected by law by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please forward a copy to mrutterarutterlaw.com and delete the message and its attachments from your computer. Thank you. From: Marshall A. Rutter [malito:mrutter@rutt obbs.com] Sent, Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12.25 PM To: Marshall Ruttier Subject: 265332_1.DOC A-178 Carla Morreale From: Carol W. Lynch <CLynch@rwglaw.com> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:31 AM To: Carla Morreale Subject: FW: Notice of Appeal; Case No. ZON2011-00280 Carla For inclusion at the end of the agenda packet regarding Agenda Item No. 1/the Knoll View appeal. Carol From: Jana Gordon [mailto:jana@standenislaw.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:03 AM To: Carol W. Lynch Cc: stan@standenislaw.com; terri@standenislaw.com Subject: Notice of Appeal; Case No. ZON2011-00280 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING IS AN EMAIL COMMUNICATION FROM MR. DENIS PERSONALLY Also, when communicating with this office via email please include all of the following addresses on any communications to ensure the promptest attention and reply: stan@standenislaw.com, terri@standenislaw.com, lana@standenislaw.com. LAW OFFICES OF STANLEY DENIS TELEPHONE 3620 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (310) 378-4900 SUITE 200 TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 April 30, 2015 Via Email Only clynch@rwglaw.com Carol Lynch Richards Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 900071 Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 Case No. ZON2011-00280 Lot 7 of Tract 27142 (APN 756-006-018) Property Owner: Mr. Amir Esfahani Dear Ms. Lynch: Thank you for speaking with me yesterday. FACSIMILE (310)378-4911 As I understand it, it is your position (or at least preliminary position) that the Deed recorded on November 30, 1965 from J. H. Barton Construction Co., Inc. to Anna Duffy conveying Lot 7 and referencing an easement over Lot 6 is actually the document that creates the easement, as opposed to simply referencing the easement. A-179 Although I disagree with your interpretation, we both agree that if J. H. Barton Construction Co., Inc. did not own Lot 6 at the time this Deed was recorded on November 30, 1965 (or perhaps when it was executed on October 13, 1965) that this Grant Deed obviously could not have created an easement over and against Lot 6 if the Grantor did not own Lot 6 at the time. As I indicated to you, I am leaving town on Friday and returning late Monday. I will ask my staff to contact our title rep to see if we can track the chain of title on Lot 6 back to that October/November 1965 time frame to make that determination. I cannot, obviously, guarantee that we will have that documentation available for the hearing on Tuesday evening. Having said all of that, I think there is one important facet which you have overlooked and which I would like to raise now: If your interpretation was correct, i.e. that this Barton to Duffy Deed from October/November 1965 is the document that actually creates an easement against Lot 6 and in favor of Lot 7 then that recorded document would have been clearly and expressly stated as an "Exception" to my client's title policy issued by Investors Title Company in 1987. This title policy was forwarded to you with my email of February 26, 2015. You will note that although there are many exceptions called out in Schedule B of the policy including many easements of one kind or another, this purported easement in favor of Lot 7 purportedly created by the Barton/Duffy Deed is not identified. I am going to defer to the title company's experience and expertise on this issue. May I suggest that, in lieu of what may potentially be a waste of everyone's time on Tuesday evening, that this calendar item be continued to give my offices, and for that matter yours, an opportunity to further explore the chain of title and related issues. Best regards, LAW OFFICES OF STANLEY DENIS /s/ Stanley Denis SD/jg Email Lynch 15.0430 This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information (and in some cases, information protected by either or both doctrines of attorney-client privilege and attorney work -product), and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity or entities to whom the communication is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail, and delete and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us bye -mail will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the full extent of the law. Please be advised, however, that the Law Offices of Stanley Denis and its lawyers do not F.'s • represent you until you have signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other deadlines for your case or potential case. Click here to report this email as spam. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the transmission. A-181