Loading...
CC RES 2017-050 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A GRADING PERMIT REVISION, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT, AND FENCE/WALL PERMIT TO ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUS COUNCIL-APPROVED GRADING PERMIT AT 2950 CROWNVIEW DRIVE. WHEREAS, on May 14, 2004, Staff received a code violation complaint alleging that unpermitted retaining walls were being constructed and grading was occurring on the property located at 2950 Crownview Drive (formerly 29664 Grandpoint Lane). Staff confirmed the unpermitted construction activity, and after several attempts to contact the property owner, on November 10, 2005, the property owner submitted Site Plan Review and Grading Permit applications for the construction of a new 5,306 square foot one-story residence and to legalize the unpermitted retaining walls with 388yd3 of grading to accommodate the proposed improvements; and, WHEREAS, on July 7, 2006, the Director of Community Development approved the project with conditions; and, WHEREAS, on July 20, 2006, a timely appeal was filed by Rod White, Harry and Peggy Fussganger, and Ruperto Elpusan and Lula Bullale, the property owners of 2952, 2960, and 3070 Crownview Drive, respectively, raising concerns with destruction of the natural contour of the hill, underestimation of lot coverage, resulting in appearance of bulk and mass, and mischaracterization of the illegal retaining wall along the western property line; and, WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing, adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2006-59, upholding the Director's decision to approve the applicant's project with a condition requiring that the upper retaining wall be demolished and the lower retaining wall at the northeast corner of the property be reduced to 3' 6" in height; and, WHEREAS, a timely appeal was filed by the same appellants, Rod White, Harry and Peggy Fussganger, and Ruperto Elpusan and Lula Bullale, the property owners of 2952, 2960 and 3070 Crownview Drive, respectively. The appellants raised concerns about the structural integrity of the unpermitted walls, the measurement methods for the retaining walls, and the location of the northeast corner retaining wall; and, WHEREAS, On June 7, 2007, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 2007-63, upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve the applicant's project; and, WHEREAS, on December 16, 2008, a building permit was issued for the construction of the approved project; and, WHEREAS, after three years and two time extensions, the construction permit expired in December 2010. In April 2016, the planning entitlement was reissued and a new Building Permit was issued to complete the work started under the original Building Permit; and, WHEREAS, during construction, the property owner realized that the Council- approved 4' 6" tall retaining wall would not be tall enough retain the extreme slope just north of the garage. Additionally, it also became apparent that the retaining walls that were built years ago were beginning to fail. The property owner was informed that these walls would have to be rebuilt to meet current Building Codes. As a result, the property owner submitted a request to revise the Council-approved Major Grading permit to stabilize the transitional slopes and to improve the structural integrity of the existing retaining walls: and, WHEREAS, On July 28, 2017, a public notice was mailed to owners of property within a 500' radius of the subject site and published in the Daily Breeze. During the public comment period, Staff received correspondence from three neighbors expressing concerns with the proposed revisions and Staff met with these neighbors to discuss their concerns; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 2 (Section 15302); and, WHEREAS, on August 15, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project is a request for the following: A. Replace the Council-approved 4' 6"-tall retaining wall north of the garage with two terraced walls consisting of an 8.22'-tall lower retaining wall and an 8.04'-tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5'-tall guardrail along the property line). B. Replace and relocate the two unpermitted terraced retaining walls that partially encroach into the neighbor's property at the north-east corner of the property with two new terraced walls consisting of an 3'-tall lower retaining wall and a 7'-tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5'-tall guardrail) entirely on the subject property. Resolution No. 2017-50 Page 2 of 7 C. Replace the existing deteriorating 3.9'-tall retaining wall along the west property line with a new 8.1'-tall combination wall (includes 3.5'-tall guardrail) that will extend around to the rear yard, which will replace a previously approved 2.5'-tall wall in the rear yard. The portion of said wall extending into the rear yard will not require a guardrail. D. Conduct 128.13 yd3 of additional grading consisting of 126.83 yd3 cut and 1.3 yd3 fill to accommodate the proposed retaining walls. Section 2: Approval of the Revised Major Grading Permit is warranted because: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. More specifically, the primary use of the subject lot is residential as identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning map and the applicant requests approval to replace retaining walls with 128.13 yd3 of associated grading. One of the walls was found to be too short to support the existing extreme slope, Building & Safety Division identified structural issues with several of the unpermitted retaining walls, and a set of unpermitted retaining walls at the northeast corner were built partially on the neighbor's property by the previous property owner. The proposed project is to correct these issues by either reconstructing or building new retaining walls that are properly engineered entirely on the subject property to accommodate the residential development on the site. The applicant is not proposing grading beyond what is necessary to replace the improperly constructed retaining walls. B. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, the viewing area of neighboring properties. The property is accessed via a private driveway that is higher in elevation than the building pad. As a result, the upsloping retaining walls north of the garage will face the subject property and only a few inches of the retaining wall and the 3.5' tall required guardrail on top will be visible from the adjacent properties and the private access driveway. As for the two downslope terraced walls at the north-east corner of the property facing 2938 Crownview Drive, the area between the 7.5'-tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5'-tall guardrail) and the lower 3'-tall retaining wall will be landscaped to soften the appearance of these walls from neighboring properties. The upslope neighboring properties, to the south, on Grandpoint Lane are located approximately 40 to 50 feet higher in elevation than the subject property and therefore, the proposed retaining walls do not impair their view. The properties to the east on Crownview Drive are located at least 20 feet lower in elevation than the subject property and therefore do not have views over the proposed project area. In regards to the properties to the west, although the 3.5'-tall guardrail is required along the majority of the west property line wall, the guard rail will not cause a significant view impairment from 2952 Crownview Drive, as articulated in the Fence/Wall Permit Section below. Resolution No. 2017-50 Page 3 of 7 C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. Per the geotechnical investigation report dated April 4, 2005, the existing "natural" contours of the project sites are largely the result of past grading, which occurred in 1959 for the development of Tract No. 22615, and in the early 1960s for the current Tract No. 28321. Additionally, the current layout of the site was permitted per the previously approved grading permit. The proposed replacement retaining walls are in the same general location as what was originally approved by the Council. The unpermitted retaining wall that partially encroaches over a neighbor's property will be reconstructed with a properly engineered retaining wall that will be in the same general location, but solely on the subject property. The proposed project is limited to the previously approved grading area. D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. The existing "natural" contours of the project site are largely the result of tract grading in the past, as well as past development, which included the existing retaining walls. Additionally, there is minimal land-sculpturing as the proposed grading area will be limited to the previously approved areas to replace retaining walls in the same general location. E. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in the grading section of the Municipal Code (17.76.040.A) and the grading conforms to standards related to maximum finished slopes and driveways. The proposed terraced retaining walls consist of an 8.04'-tall upper combination wall (4.54'-tall retaining wall topped with a 3.5'-tall guardrail) and an 8.22'-tall lower retaining wall north of the garage. Subsection (e) states that only one 8' tall upslope wall shall be permitted. However, as the existing maximum elevation difference between the building pad and the adjacent private access driveway is approximately 13', any proposed wall or combination of walls must be more than 8' in height to allow the continued reasonable use of the subject property. Additionally, the proposed retaining wall up to 8.22' in height inevitably requires a depth of cut in excess of 5' in height. The proposed 5'-tall retaining wall along the west side property line extends into the rear yard over slopes greater than 50%. This new wall is proposed primarily to replace an improperly built wall, as required by the Building & Safety Division. The proposed grading to support the construction of the retaining walls is primarily limited to only what's necessary to replace walls in the same general location as the previous approval. Additionally, the proposed walls and associated grading will not affect the natural scenic character of the area, as articulated in Finding No. 2 above, and will preserve the reasonable economic use of the property. F. Allowing retaining walls that exceed 8' against an ascending slope and 3.5' in the side yard, and grading over extreme slope would not constitute granting special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other neighboring properties. This is because similar improvements exist on neighboring lots which have comparable Resolution No. 2017-50 Page 4 of 7 terraced retaining walls in the side, front, and/or rear yards. G. Notice of decision will be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the property. Section 3: Approval of the Minor Exception Permit is warranted by practical difficulties because of the grade differential (more than 13') between the building pad and the private driveway and the abutting property to the west. There isn't enough area between the proposed walls and the existing residence to support a one third shorter terraced wall, and proposing additional walls may result in inconsistencies with other sections of the grading criteria. Alternatively, portions of the walls exceeding 8' in height may be covered with additional earth to reduce the height of the wall, but that would require a substantial burden to engineer a wall that could support this additional weight since a portion of the lower wall is integrated into the garage. Section 4: The project also meets all the criteria in the Fence/Wall Permit section for Minor Exception Permits: A. The height of the combination walls will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare. The improperly built retaining walls will be replaced with Code-compliant engineered walls, which will improve the public safety and welfare. Additionally, City Geologist and Building & Safety Division review and approval will be required. B. The line of sight over or through the guardrail is adequate for safety and does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel as defined in RPVDC Section 17.02.040. C. The height of the retaining portion of the combination walls meet all of the findings required for a Grading Permit to be approved. D. As articulated in the above "Revised Major Grading Permit" section above, all findings required for a Grading Permit have been met. Section 5: Approval of the Fence/Wall Permit is warranted because: A. The combination wall along the western side property line will not significantly impair a view from the viewing area, as defined in RPVDC Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts), of another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing area. The upslope neighboring properties to the south located on Grandpoint Lane are located approximately 40 to 50 feet higher in elevation than the subject property and the proposed fence is not located within their protected view. The properties to the east on Crownview Drive are located at least 20 feet lower in elevation than the subject property and therefore do not have views over the proposed project area. The upslope property at 2952 Crownview Drive is approximately 13 feet higher in Resolution No. 2017-50 Page 5 of 7 elevation and has a view over the subject property. Specifically, this property has a view of city lights, Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, the Vincent Thomas Bridge and the ocean. The top portions (guardrail) of the proposed combination wall will minimally extend into the bottom of the protected view of the city lights, while the remaining components of the view will not be impacted. Portions of the proposed combination walls along the north are visible from the viewing area of 2952 Crownview, but only impair views of a neighboring vacant residential property, which is not considered a protected view. Additionally, the portions of the proposed combination wall along the northeast are not visible from the viewing area of this property. As the overall amount of impairment is minimal, as compared with the entirety of the view frame, the Council finds that the view impairment caused by said guardrail is not significant. Notwithstanding the above, as the upslope neighbor had expressed a concern with the proposed guardrail impacting their view, the applicant has agreed and a condition is attached which states that prior to issuance of Building and/or Grading permits, a portion of the property at 2952 Crownview Drive behind the upper western retaining wall shall be excavated and regraded with a 2:1 slope that would reduce the required height for the upper retaining wall, and consequently lower the top of the guardrail by at least 6" in the view, to 42" above the finished grade at the upslope side of the wall. B. The proposed combination wall meets all applicable standards and requirements of the General Plan and the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, including but not limited to setbacks, height, and views. Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council. Section 7: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED the 15th day of August 2017. ite"ATTEST: May it y Clerk Resolution No. 2017-50 Page 6 of 7 State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2017-50 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on August 15, 2017. ity Clerk Resolution No. 2017-50 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00224 (2950 Crownview Drive) 1. All conditions of City Council Resolution No. 2007-63, unless otherwise amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect. 2. 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 decision. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 3. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public notification. 6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. Resolution No. 2017-50 Exhibit A Page 1 of 4 7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code or administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. 8. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this decision. 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. 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. 13. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes 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 7:00 AM Monday through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the Resolution No. 2017-50 Exhibit A Page 2 of 4 distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 14. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 15. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS all applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety Division, shall be approved by the City's Geologist. 16. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, haul routes to transport soil shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 17. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30 calendar days shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. Project Specific Conditions: 18. This approval allows for the following improvements on the subject property: a. Replace the Council-approved 4' 6"-tall retaining wall north of the garage with two terraced walls consisting of an 8.22'-tall lower retaining wall and an 8.04' tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5'-tall guardrail along the property line). b. Replace and relocate the two unpermitted terraced retaining walls that partially encroach into the neighbor's property at the north-east corner of the property with two new terraced walls consisting of an 3'-tall lower retaining wall and a 7'-tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5'-tall guardrail) entirely on the subject property. c. Replace the existing deteriorating 3.9'-tall retaining wall along the west property line with a new 8.1'-tall combination wall (includes 3.5'-tall guardrail) that will extend around to the rear yard, which will replace a previously approved 2.5'-tall wall in the rear yard. The portion of said wall extending into the rear yard will not require a guardrail. d. Conduct 128.13 of additional grading consisting of 126.83 cut and 1.3 yd3 fill to accommodate the proposed retaining walls. 19. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 37.4% lot coverage. 20. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, wall Resolution No. 2017-50 Exhibit A Page 3 of 4 height elevation certifications and location certifications for the new 8.1' tall combination wall (includes 3.5' tall guardrail) that will extend around to the rear yard, along the western side property line, and the two terraced retaining walls at the north-east corner of the property consisting of an 3' tall lower retaining wall and a 7' tall upper combination wall (includes 3.5' tall guardrail) entirely on the subject property shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval. A licensed civil engineer or surveyor shall prepare and wet-stamp the Certifications. 21. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS, the Director shall review and approve a landscaping plan for the area between the two downsloping terraced walls at the north-east corner of the property, facing the property at 2938 Crownview Drive. 22. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, the landscaping between the two downsloping terraced walls at the north-east corner of the property shall be installed. 23. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF PLANS TO THE BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION, revised plans shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development showing that the guardrail on top of the upper combination wall located along the west side property line shall not exceed 42"above the finished grade at the upslope side of the wall, which ranges between 937.6' and 939.5'. The guardrail shall be constructed and maintained as a dark colored metal material. 24. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF PLANS TO THE BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION, if any earth movement on the upslope property at 2952 Crownview Drive is required, an application signed by the upslope property owner shall be submitted to Planning. 25. Any proposed change to the location, size, material and color of the approved guardrails shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development through a Minor Modification Permit process per RPVDC Section 17.78.040. 26. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS, the applicant shall obtain an easement construction agreement for work within the ingress, egress and public utilities easement for 2952 Crownview Drive, in addition to any other easements where permanent improvements are proposed. 27. The property owner of 2950 Crownview Drive, at their expense, shall replace the hedge located on 2952 Crownview Drive along the west property line if it is damaged or dies as a result of the excavation for the new transitional slope supporting the retaining wall and guardrail, with vegetation that is of a comparable plant species and size as deemed acceptable by the Director of Community Development prior to the final grading permit inspection. Resolution No. 2017-50 Exhibit A Page 4 of 4