The URL can be used to link to this page

CC SR 20180220 01 - 27581 PVDE CC AppealRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 02/20/2018 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Vesting Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case Nos. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 and ZON2016- 00120) for the property located at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East. 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. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.80.070(F) (De Novo Review), the City Council appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the materials presented to the Planning Commission. Any matter or evidence relating to the action on the application, regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed by the City Council at the appeal hearing. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Adopt Resolution No. 2018-_, thereby denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision approving Vesting Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review to allow the demolition of an existing residence and the subdivision of an existing lot into two separate lots to allow single-family residential development on each lot with associated grading. FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellants have paid the applicable appeal fees. If the Appellants are successful in the appeal and the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision, the Appellants will receive a full refund of the appeal fee. Thus, all in-house Staff costs associated with the processing of the appeal will be borne by the City's General Fund. If the appeal results in a modification to the project, however, then only one-half of the appeal fee will be refunded to the Appellants. Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Octavio Silva, Associate Planner,. REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development; APPROVED BY: Doug Wilmore, City Manager,/kIi 1 ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Draft Resolution No. 2018- (page A-1) B. Appeal Letter (page B-1) C. Applicants' Response to the Appeal (C-1) D. Public Comments (page D-1) E. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 (page E-1) F. Planning Commission Staff Report of November 28, 2017 (page F-1) G. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 28, 2017 (page G-1) H. Project Plans (page H-1) BACKGROUND: On August 9, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the project, filed by Nital and Nilay Patel ("Applicants"), at a duly -noticed public hearing, which (at the time) included a Variance request in order to allow a reduction in the City's minimum lot width requirement of 90'. After considering evidence introduced in the record, including public testimony from the Applicants, neighbors, and Staff, the Planning Commission directed the Applicants to redesign the proposed subdivision to comply with City code and eliminate the requested need for a Variance; and to modify the design of the two new residences by reducing the structures' size and bulk, as well as to address privacy concerns. On November 28, 2017, a revised project was presented to the Planning Commission, and, after considering the evidence introduced regarding the revised project plans and public testimony, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the project on a 4-1 vote, with Commissioner Bradley dissenting. The basis of the Planning Commission's approval can be found in P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 (Attachment E). On December 13, 2017, a timely appeal was filed by Vince Vassallo, Robert Bennet, Scott Ramsey, Glenn Komae, Art Viewig, and Reg Lowell ("Appellants"), who are neighbors located to the north of the property in the City of Rolling Hills Estates (RHE). The aerial map on the following page shows the project site in relation to the city boundary. In summary, the Appellants contend that the approval of the project did not consider RHE residents' concerns and that the project is incompatible with immediate neighborhood with respect to structure size, bulk and mass, view impairment and privacy (Attachment B). On January 18, 2018, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed to all property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the property and to interested parties, providing a 30 -day period for the submittal of written comments. As of the completion of this report, Staff received twelve comments in response to the public notice (Attachment D), in addition to the Applicants' response to the appeal (Attachment C). 2 i ..,. V_�:Mk DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission -approved project allows the following: Demolition of an existing two-story residence. Subdivision of an existing lot into two separate lots to allow: o Lot 1 – Measuring 20,649 square feet to accommodate the construction of a 5,927 -square -foot, two-story residence with 1,528 cubic yards of grading. o Lot 2 – Measuring 23,029 square feet to accommodate the construction of a 5,311 -square -foot, two-story residence with 1,766 cubic yards of grading. A detailed background summary, site and project descriptions, analysis of the required findings, letters of concern, and Staff's responses to these concerns—all of which were considered by the Planning Commission—are included in the November 28, 2017, Planning Commission Staff report (Attachment F). The reasons for the appeal and Staff's summarized responses are provided below (appeal points in bold/underline and Staff's response in normal font). Appeal Reason No. 1: The concerns of Rolling Hills Estates residents were not considered in the assessment of the proposed project. 3 The Appellants contend that, while residents in both RPV and RHE raised concerns, none of the RHE residents' concerns were considered as part of the project's assessment. The Appellants raised concerns with neighborhood compatibility, including structure size, architectural style, bulk and mass, and height of the proposed project. Staff conducted site visits to the RHE properties, and although the City's Development Code and its application processes do not include the assessment of project impacts upon properties in other jurisdictions, the Planning Commission considered these concerns at its August 9, 2016, meeting when it directed the Applicants to reduce the size and scale of the proposed residences. As a result, the Appellants' concerns were considered as part of the Planning Commission's review of the proposed project. Appeal Reason No. 2: The sampling size used for the neighborhood compatibility analysis is inadequate and didn't cover the adjacent properties in Rolling Hills Estates. The City's ordinances do not apply to properties outside of the city boundary. The City Council -adopted Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook states that a project requiring neighborhood compatibility is normally analyzed based on at least 20 closest homes within the same zoning district, which are also the homes most likely to be affected by the project. As the RHE properties have their own zoning designations (different from those in RPV), these homes were not included in Staff's analysis. Moreover, the early neighbor consultation that is part of the Height Variation Permit process is only deemed adequate if a certain number of signatures of property owners are obtained by the Applicants within the City limits. Since the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and the Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits expressly limit sampling and analysis to RPV properties, the analysis completed for the proposed project is adequate. Nonetheless, as stated above, the Planning Commission did consider the Appellants' concerns in its decision. Appeal Reason No. 3: The proposed project is incompatible with the neighborhood with respect to structure size, bulk and mass, height, view impairment, and privacy. The proposed project was initially considered by the Planning Commission on August 9, 2016, at which time it was continued based on concerns related to structure size, bulk and mass, privacy impacts, and its compatibility with neighboring properties in both RPV and RHE. The Applicants were directed to make specific revisions to the proposed homes, as well as to revise the design of the lot split. The Applicants revised the project to address these concerns as described below: • Redesigned the proposed subdivision to conform to Code requirements, which eliminated the need for a Variance for reduced lot width. • Reduced the structure sizes on Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 from 8,182 square feet and 8,103 square feet to 5,927 square feet and 5,311 square feet, respectively (3 -car garages and basements included). El Reduced bulk and mass concerns by providing enhanced architectural features and projections, as well as increasing setbacks from adjacent properties and between the two structures. In addition, the residence on Lot No. 2 was sited towards to the rear of the residence and notched into the existing slope. Eliminated windows on north -facing building elevations so as to reduce privacy impacts upon neighboring properties in RHE to the north of the project site. On November 28, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the revised project, determined that their concerns had been addressed, and found that the proposed project was compatible with the immediate neighborhood, as discussed in the November 28, 2017, Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment F). With regard to view impairment concerns, Staff visited the RHE properties at 4 and 6 Harbor Sight Drive to assess the proposed project based upon the project silhouette. While RHE has its own view protection ordinance, Staff's view analysis was conducted based on the RPV's View Ordinance and Height Variation Permit Handout. Staff found that views from 4 and 6 Harbor Sight Drive are observed in an easterly direction and consist of views of the harbor, city lights and mountains. Staff did not find any significant view impairment from 4 Harbor Sight Drive as portions of the proposed residence that may impair a view would be constructed within the by -right (16720') height limitations. View impairment assessments are only conducted for structures over 16' in height. Staff also visited the property at 6 Harbor Sight Drive and found that the proposed project would not cause significant view impairment since the proposed project impairs a small portion of the harbor view at the right periphery (see red shaded area) while the majority of the view is preserved, as shown in the photo below. Appeal Reason No. 4: The proposed project will create privacy impacts upon properties at 2 and 4 Harbor Sight Drive in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, which will result in loss of value to Harbor Sight residences. 16i The RHE properties at 2 and 4 Harbor Sight Drive are located to the north of the project site. As previously discussed, the project was initially considered by the Planning Commission on August 9, 2016, at which time the Planning Commission expressed concerns with a number of project aspects, including possible privacy impacts upon adjacent properties. As a result, the Planning Commission directed the Applicants to revise the proposed project to address the Planning Commission's concerns. With the resubmitted project, the Planning Commission determined that the Applicants had addressed these privacy concerns by increasing the setbacks to 65' and 26', respectively, for Lots 1 and 2 at the northerly side property line; eliminating balconies; and reducing the number of windows along the north building fagades, which face the properties at 2 and 4 Harbor Sight Drive. In order to further mitigate concerns related to privacy impacts, the Applicants further revised the project plans to provide enhanced landscaping along the northerly side property line, and removed and modified several north -facing windows for both residences. Appeal Reason No. 5: The proposed project grading may adversely impact geologic stability in the area. The proposed Grading Permit required the Planning Commission to consider the overall grading quantities being proposed for the development of the two lots. The Planning Commission was able to affirmatively make all of the required Grading permit findings and the approval of the project included conditions of approval (Attachment E) addressing potential impacts associated with the grading activities in terms of circulation of trucks and the geologic stability in the area. Specifically, Condition No. 51 requires the Applicants to obtain a Haul Route Permit from the City's Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, and Condition No. 58 requires that a grading plan and geotechnical report be approved by the City's Building Official and Geologist prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit to ensure that there will be no impacts to neighboring properties. Appeal Reason No. 6: Siting the proposed project at the center of the site results in the two proposed residences being located closer together and, therefore, exaggerates the appearance of scale. In considering the proposed lot split, the Planning Commission found that the two newly -created lots conform to RPVMC Section 16.04.040 (Map Requirements) as it relates to contiguous lot areas. Contiguous lot area is considered that portion of the property that will be used as the building pad and/or building area for future construction. The minimum contiguous lot area must be 3,000 square feet or 33% of the minimum lot area required by the residential zoning district standards, whichever is greater, and does not include any required setback areas and slopes equal to or great than 35%. The Planning Commission found that the residences were sited on their respective lots based upon setback requirements, view corridors, vehicular access, and Fire Department turn -around requirements, to name a few. Additionally, the Planning Commission determined that the design of the revised project, including its siting, was compatible to the neighborhood in terms of scale. on Appeal Reason No. 7: City Staff hand-picked photographs of three massive residential developments at its presentation to the Planning Commission to give the impression that such residential development was typical in the area. The PowerPoint presented at the November 28, 2017, Planning Commission meeting included photographs of RPV residences, including 27701, 27649 and 27591 Palos Verdes Drive East, that were assessed as part of the required Neighborhood Compatibility analysis. These photographs were intended to generally represent the varied architectural styles amongst the 20 closest residences in RPV. Irrespective, the Planning Commission reported that they visited the site to view the project silhouette as it relates to the immediate neighborhood including properties in RHE. Appeal Reason No. 8: The Planning Commission refused to look at late correspondence presented by an Appellants. The Planning Commission was provided with Late Correspondence at the November 28, 2017, meeting. The same correspondence was also attached to the appeal letter that was presented to the City Council (Attachment B). Appeal Reason No. 9: The Planning Commission meeting on November 28, 2017 was not recorded and that no video, audio or written transcripts exist. Due to technical difficulties, there are no video or audio recordings of the November 28, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission's action -item meeting minutes (Attachment G) were expanded to try to more -fully capture the discussion that ensued at the meeting. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Applicants' Response to the Appeal Letter In response to the Appellants' appeal, the Applicants submitted a letter that responds to the various aspects of the appeal (Attachment C). The Applicants also provided information about recent residential development in RHE. Public Notice & Public Comments On January 18, 2018, a public notice was mailed to owners of property within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site and published in the Peninsula News. In response, Staff received twelve public comments (Attachment D), one of which is a letter from RHE Mayor Britt Huff. The mayor's letter requests that the City Council consider the merits of the appeal with respect to view preservation, privacy protection, massing, and setbacks from property lines. In addition, the letter references an instance when view impacts of proposed development in RHE upon RPV residents were considered by RHE. The mayor's letter also references a letter submitted by RHE Community Development Director David Wahba in response to the Planning Commission's original August 9, 2016, review of the project. As previously discussed, the project has been redesigned at 7 the direction of the Planning Commission to address the concerns raised by residents both in the City of RPV and RHE. Three public comments that were submitted were from RHE residents at 7 and 10 Harbor Sight Drive. These comments express project concerns related to view impairment (not as observed from their properties), bulk and mass, and neighborhood incompatibility. These concerns are addressed in this report. Finally, eight public comments were received from members of the public who expressed support of the proposed project. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Staff believes that the reasons cited by the Appellants to overturn the Planning Commission's conditional approval of this project do not warrant such action. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the draft resolution presented this evening, thereby denying the neighbors' appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval of the project. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Modify the appeal and direct Staff to return to the City Council with a revised resolution for adoption at the March 6, 2018, meeting. 2. Grant the appeal, overturning the Planning Commission's decision by denying the project, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for adoption at the March 6, 2018, meeting. 3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project's design, provide Staff and/or the Applicants with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a future date certain. RESOLUTION NO. 2018- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72658, HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND THE SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING LOT INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUICTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON EACT LOT WITH ASSOCIATED GRADING LOCATED AT 27581 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST (CASE NOS. SUB2014-0003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120). WHEREAS, on July 14, 2014, the Applicants, Nital and Nilay Patel ("Applicants") submitted an application for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658, Variance, Height Variation, Grading, and Site Plan Review to subdivide an existing lot located at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) into two separate lots in order to construct two new residences on each lot; and, WHEREAS, on August 8, 2014, based on preliminary review, Staff deemed the applications incomplete for processing. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information by Staff and the City Engineer, Staff deemed the project complete on May 25, 2016; and, WHEREAS, on June 30, 2016, the public notice of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Variance, Height Variation, and Grading Permit applications was sent to the property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies. Additionally, a public notice was published on the same day in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2016, 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 and at which time the Planning Commission directed the Applicants to redesign the proposed subdivision to comply with zoning requirements as it related to the minimum lot width requirement, thereby eliminating the need for a Variance, and to modify the design of the two new residences with respect to reducing the structure sizes, bulk and addressing privacy concerns. The Commission continued the public hearing to September 27, 2016; and, WHEREAS, on September 27, 2016, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to a date uncertain, providing the Applicants additional time to redesign the project; and, A-1 WHEREAS, on November 28, 2018, the Planning Commission, after considering evidence introduced in the record on the revised project, adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43, approving, with conditions, Vesting Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review, allowing the demolition of an existing residence and subdividing a single lot into two separate lots to accommodate the development of a two-story residence with related site improvements and associated grading on each of the lots. The revised project did not require a Variance request, as was initially requested, since the Applicants redesigned the proposed subdivision to conform to the required RS -2 lot dimensions; and, WHEREAS, on December 13, 2017, a timely appeal was filed by Vince Vassallo, Robert Bennet, Scott Ramsey, Glenn Komae, Art Viewig, and Reg Lowell ("Appellants"), who are neighbors located to the north of the project site in the City of Rolling Hills Estates; and, WHEREAS, the appeal listed the following concerns with the Planning Commission's decision: 1) the concerns of Rolling Hills Estates residents were not considered in the assessment of the proposed project; 2) the sampling size used for the neighborhood compatibility analysis is inadequate and didn't cover the adjacent properties in the Rolling Hills Estates; 3) the proposed project is incompatible with the neighborhood with respect to structures size, bulk and mass, height, view impairment and privacy; 4) the proposed project will create privacy impacts upon properties at 2 and 4 Harbor Sight Drive in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, which will result in loss of value to Harbor Sight residences; 5) the proposed project grading may adversely impact geologic stability in the area; 6) siting the proposed project at the center of the site results in the two proposed residences being located closer together and, therefore, exaggerates the appearance of scale; 7) City Staff hand-picked photographs of three massive residential developments at its presentation to the Planning Commission to give the impression that such residential development was typical in the area; 8) the Planning Commission refused to look at late correspondence presented by an Appellants; and 9) the Planning Commission meeting on November 28, 2017 was not recorded and that no video, audio or written transcripts exist; and, WHEREAS, on January 18, 2018, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed to all property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject property announcing the City Council meeting on the appeal; 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), determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA, under Article 19, Sections 15303(a) (Construction of Single - Resolution No. 2018 - Page 2 of 25 A-2 Family Residence) and 15315 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA; and, WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, 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 project involves the demolition of a two-story residence, subdivision of an existing lot into two separate lots measuring 20,649 square feet for Lot No. 1 and 23,029 square feet for Lot No. 2, and the construction of a residence on each lot. Lot No. 1 will be improved with a 5,927 -square -foot two-story residence with associated improvements along with 1,528 cubic yards of grading and Lot No. 2 will be improved with a 5,311 -square -foot two-story residence and related site improvements along with 1,766 cubic yards of grading. Section 2. The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658 complies with the requirements set forth in the State's Subdivision Map Act, the Development Code and other applicable sections of the City's Municipal Code because: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan. The parcel is located within the General Plan land use designation of "one to two dwelling units per acre" (1-2 d.u./acre). The minimum lot size required for the 1-2 d.u./acre designation is 20,000 square feet, and the proposed new lots will measure 20,649 square feet (Lot No. 1) and 23,029 in size (Lot No. 2). B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan designation of "one to two dwelling units per acre" (1-2 d.u./acre), which has a corresponding zoning designation of "two dwelling units per acre (RS - 2). The General Plan requires new lots to comply with the lot dimensions listed in the Development Code under the appropriate zoning district. The proposed lots comply with the minimum required 20,000 square foot lot size, a minimum lot width 90', and a minimum lot depth of 120' for the RS -2 zoning district. Lot No. 1 will measure 20,649 square feet in size with a width of 181' and a depth of 120' and Lot No. 2 will measure 23,029 square feet in size with a width of 168' and a depth of 137'. C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the development. The proposed lots will have a contiguous lot area that exceeds the minimum required 6,600 square feet in the RS -2 zoning district, which is suitable to accommodate a single-family residence on each lot that complies with the Resolution No. 2018 - Page 3 of 25 A-3 standards set forth in the RS -2 zoning district, as it pertains to structure size, lot coverage and setbacks. Both lots will have ingress and egress from PVDE, with an easement over the driveway on Lot 1 that benefits Lot 2 for ingress and egress, fire access, and utilities. Existing utilities are available for connection in the public street right-of-way on Palos Verdes Drive East. Prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicants will be required to obtain approval from the City of Rolling Hills Estates for the requested driveway and associated grading, as the property has driveway access from Palos Verdes Drive East in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. D. The proposed subdivision and associated improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or harm wild life or their habitat. The subdivision will create two lots, which will allow for the construction of two new residential structures in an established residential neighborhood. According to the General Plan's Biotic Species Map, the subject property is not located near a blue line stream or any wildlife. According to the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), no Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species have been identified on the property and/or any nearby properties. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. The proposed residential structures will be required to comply with the City's Development Code standards and require approval by the Building & Safety Division to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. The City's Geotechnical Consultant has reviewed and provided an "in -concept" approval of the geotechnical reports that were prepared for the proposed parcel map. A more detailed site and project -specific geotechnical report will be required for approval by the City's Geotechnical Consultant and any drainage concerns shall be addressed prior to any permit issuance. The existing parcel is directly adjacent to a public street (Palos Verdes Drive East) that will permit connection to existing water lines that are serviced by the California Water Service that currently serves the existing surrounding residential development. The new lots will be required to connect to existing sewer lines, the location and design of which will require a review by the Rolling Hills Estates because these utilities are located in their jurisdiction. F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not be in conflict with the easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision since there are no existing or proposed public easements on the subject lot. Section 3. A Height Variation is warranted for the construction of a new 26' tall, 5,927 -square -foot two-story residence (basement and attached garage included) on Lot No. 1 and a new 24' tall, 5,311 -square -foot (garage and basement included) two-story residence on Lot No. 2 because: Resolution No. 2018 - Page 4 of 25 MA A. The Applicants have complied with the early neighborhood consultation process guidelines and procedures established by the City Council by obtaining signatures from 70% of the landowners within 100 feet and 25% of the total number of landowners within 500 feet radius (including those within 100 feet). B. The City's General Plan, adopted June 26, 1975, identifies viewing points (turnouts along vehicular corridors for the purposes of viewing) and viewing sites (public site areas, which due to their physical locations on the Peninsula, provide a significant viewing vantage) within the City. Due to the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structures are not visible from a public viewing area or viewing site, as defined by the General Plan. Additionally, the subject property is not located within the City's Coastal Specific Plan, and there are no public trails that traverse the property. C. The proposed structures are not located on a ridge or promontory. The proposed residence would be located on an existing building pad, which is not on a prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on two sides. D. The proposed new structures that are above sixteen feet in height, as defined in Section 17.02.040(B) of the Development Code, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. Views of the ocean, harbor and city lights are observed by the adjacent properties in a west and south direction. Given that the building pads of the properties to the west of the subject property are elevated approximately 55'- 0" to 60'-0" higher than the subject property and the properties to the south of the subject property are elevated approximately 25-0" to 30'-0" higher than the subject property, the westerly and southerly neighbors will continue to have a view over the proposed residences without any adverse impact caused by the proposed project. The project site abuts residential properties along Harbor Sight Drive in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, which expressed view concerns with the Applicants' initial submittal. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has a View Ordinance, which protects views of properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, but does not apply to residences outside of the City. E. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by considering: (a) the amount of view impairment caused by the proposed new structures that are above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) the amount of view impairment caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. There will be no view impairment to the neighboring properties caused by the proposed project due to the property's building pad elevation and the direction of Resolution No. 2018 - Page 5 of 25 M view. Similar construction at 27591 Palos Verdes Drive East, 27601 Palos Verdes Drive East and 27649 Palos Verdes Drive East would not result in a significant cumulative view impairment because of the sloping topography of the neighborhood. These properties are located on building pads that are approximately 25'-0" to 40'-0" lower in elevation than the properties located to the west, which would have viewing areas above the roofline heights of the two proposed residences. Furthermore, the property immediately adjacent to the subject property (27591 Palos Verdes Drive East) is already developed with a two- story residence. F. The two revised residences comply with all other Code requirements, including, but not limited to the minimum required setbacks, parking, and maximum allowed lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning district. G. The proposed structures are compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style, setbacks, bulk and mass, number of stories and open space between buildings. Specifically, the proposed project complies with the maximum lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning district (40%), as Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 propose a lot coverage of 33% and 21%, respectively. Many of the residential properties in the immediate neighborhood are at or near the same lot coverage as being proposed on Lot Nos. 1 and 2. Although the size of the proposed residences will be larger than the average in the immediate neighborhood, the two proposed residences are not the largest homes in the neighborhood (9,025 square feet). Given that the basement areas are below grade, the structure size of the residences on Lot Nos. 1 and Lot 2 that will in effect be visible, will be 4,490 square feet and 4,493 square feet, respectively. In terms of architectural style and materials, the proposed design of the residential structures use elements found in various architectural styles like Spanish Colonial, Monterey and Mediterranean/Italian Renaissance. The residences within the immediate neighborhood vary in architectural style, borrowing elements commonly found in Spanish Colonial, Monterey, Mediterranean/Italian Renaissance and California Ranch. The roof designs include gable, hip, shed and flat that use materials such as composition shingle and ceramic tile. The roof pitches and overhangs also vary in size. The exterior finishes of the neighboring properties are either stucco or wood siding and includes natural rock and brick accents. With regards to open space between structures, an aerial review of the closest 20 homes, indicates that the open space between structures varies from property to property, as a result of asymmetrical lot conditions in the area and the construction of customized homes, and the proposed project does not create an anomaly in terms of open space between structures. In terms of number of stories in the area, there are existing two story residences in the area, so the two new two-story residences are not introducing a new element to the neighborhood. Lastly, with respect to the project's bulk and mass, the project has Resolution No. 2018 - Page 6 of 25 M been redesigned to eliminate an "compound appearance" of the project by providing increased setbacks between the two residences In addition, the design of the two residences provide architectural features and projections that reduce the overall bulk and mass. As part of the resubmittal, the project has been modified so that the proposed residence on Lot No. 2 is sited towards the rear of the lot and will be notched into the existing slope, so as to further reduce the bulk and mass of the overall project. H. The proposed new structures that are above sixteen feet in height do not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the occupant of abutting residences, as the proposed second story balconies on the proposed residences on Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 are positioned and designed, so as to face a public street (Palos Verdes Drive East). In addition to the above, the north elevations of the proposed residences incorporate windows along the second stories. While these windows face properties to the north of the project site, along Harbor Sight Road within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the proposed residences provide a large enough side yard setback minimizing potential privacy issues. Specifically, the residences on Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 provide a 65' and a 26' side yard setback, respectively, to the northerly side property line. Section 4. A Major Grading Permit is warranted to allow a total of 3,683 cubic yards of grading (389 cubic yards will occur within the public right-of-way in the City of Rolling Hills Estates under a separate entitlement process) to accommodate the construction of two residences of each of the proposed lots at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East because: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The primary use of the existing subject lot is residential as identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning map. The Applicants are requesting to subdivide the existing lot to accommodate the development of each lot. The requested Grading Permit is to allow a total 3,683 cubic feet of project related earth movement consisting of 1,528 cubic yards of grading for Lot No. 1 and 1,766 cubic yards of grading for Lot No. 2, as well as the construction of an 8' high up-slope retaining wall at the rear of the residence on Lot No. 2. The proposed grading is to accommodate the construction of two new residential structures with basement areas, driveway access to the two properties and related site improvements including a pool, patio and hardscape areas, which do not exceed what is necessary for the permitted use of the lot. B. The project grading includes excavation under the building footprints of the two proposed residences. The subject property survey indicates existing grade elevations in the area of the existing building pad range between approximately 427.00' at the east end of the existing building pad and 431.00' at the west end of Resolution No. 2018 - Page 7 of 25 A-7 the existing building pad. The proposed finished grade of the building pads will be approximately 426.00' at the east end of the proposed pads, and 427.00' at the west end of the pads. The proposed grading under each lot will result in lower building pads for the two proposed residential properties by approximately 1 to 3 feet. The view of the harbor and city lights that the adjacent neighbors currently enjoy is in an easterly direction. Given that the building pads of the proposed residences will be lowered and that the building pads of the properties to the west of the subject property are elevated approximately 55-0" to 60'-0" higher than the subject property and the properties to the south of the subject property are elevated approximately 25-0" to 30'-0" higher than the subject property; the westerly and southerly neighbors will continue to have a view over the subject property without any adverse impact caused by the proposed project. C. 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 requested grading for the proposed subdivision is to accommodate two new residences within the City's permitted height requirements of 16'/30' for an upslope lot. The ridgeline of the structure on Lot 1 will be 16' above the highest existing grade adjacent to the structure, and 29' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure. The ridgeline of the structure on Lot 2 will be 15.66' above the highest existing grade adjacent to the structure, and 30' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure. The requested grading is to notch the proposed residences into the slope to minimize its visual appearance. As a result, although improvements will be visible from the street level (Palos Verdes Drive East), by notching the structure into the slope, the grading will minimize the visual impact of the structures from the neighboring properties. Additionally, the RPVDC states that on sloping lots, structures may have building envelope of up to 16' on the upper side and 30' on the lower side, by right. As stated above, this view finding does not apply when grading is utilized to lower the finished grade under the building footprint, as proposed in the Applicants' grading design. D. The proposed grading maintains a majority of the natural contours on the subject property. Specifically, the project proposes to cut and fill along the front of Lot No. 1 to accommodate a shared driveway and to grade down the existing building pad, so as to provide a lower building pad for Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 for the construction of the two new requested residences. On Lot No. 2, the project proposal includes additional cut in order to notch the proposed residence into the existing slope, as well as some fill to support rear yard improvements including a pool, patio and hardscape. The proposed grading is generally limited to developed portions of the lot. The finished contours will blend with the existing contours on the subject property. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 8 of 25 E. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features because although the slope will be altered by cutting out sections of the slope where the structures and ancillary improvements will be situated, the rest of the site will be preserved through the remaining portions being sculpted to reasonably match the existing contours. Also, there are no significant and protected natural topographic features that would be disturbed by the proposed grading especially since the existing lot is improved as a pad lot. Moreover, as previously stated, the proposed grading generally follows the existing slope of the property and results in finished slopes that appear reasonably natural. Additionally, although some land -sculpturing is proposed to occur, it is designed so as to blend the manufactured slopes into the natural topography. Furthermore, prior to the certificate of occupancy, landscape plans for both properties will be reviewed and the plants installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, which will aid in stabilizing the graded slope and will also contribute towards blending the manufactured slope into the natural topography. Thus, the Planning Commission believes that the amount of grading beyond that required to accommodate the proposed residence has been minimized. F. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The proposed structures are compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. Specifically, the project proposes to cut and fill a portion of the existing slope at the rear of Lot No. 2 in order to accommodate the proposed residence. By doing so, the residence on Lot No. 2 will be setback or recessed into the existing slope, which is consistent with design features of adjacent properties. In addition, the project also proposes to utilize fill on Lot No. 1 to accommodate a new shared driveway to provide access to the properties, which is consistent with features of homes in the area. The proposed structure sizes will not be out of scale because the proposed structures on Lot Nos. 1 and 2 are within the range of structure sizes for the neighborhood. As for the number of stories, the proposed project is not introducing new feature to the neighborhood, as other 2 -story residences in the area exist. Furthermore, building siting and the use of various design features and articulations are used to minimize the apparent bulk/mass of the two new structures. Lastly, the proposed fagade treatments, architectural style, structure height, roof design, setbacks, building materials and bulk/mass of the new residence is similar to and thus compatible with the existing neighborhood character. G. 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. However, the proposed grading does not involve a new residential tract and therefore this criterion does not apply. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 9 of 25 H. The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, maximum finished slopes, and retaining wall heights in the front, side and adjacent to driveways. However, the grading does not conform to maximum depth of cut and fill. Specifically, the project proposes a fill of 6.25' on Lot No. 1 in order to accommodate a proposed shared driveway. The proposal to exceed the maximum depth of fill is reasonable and necessary as the proposed driveway will provide vehicular accessibility to the site, including Fire Department access. Section 5: The requested Site Plan Review is warranted for the proposed ancillary improvements to Lot Nos. 1 and 2 including balconies, driveways and hardscape areas, outdoor kitchen areas, and the construction of a pool at the rear of the proposed residence on Lot No. 2. The proposed ancillary improvements comply with all applicable code requirements, including, but not limited to minimum required setbacks, parking, and maximum allowed lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning district. The proposed balconies will not result in an infringement of privacy to neighboring properties. Section 6: The merits of the appeal are not warranted as described below: A. Appeal Reason No. 1: The concerns of the Rolling Hills Estates residents were not considered in the assessment of the proposed project. Although the City's Development Code and its application processes do not include the assessment of project impacts to properties in other jurisdictions, the Planning Commission considered these concerns at its August 9, 2016, meeting when they directed the Applicants to reduce the size and scale of the proposed residences. As a result, the Appellants' concerns were considered as part of the Planning Commission's review of the proposed project. B. Appeal Reason No. 2: The sampling size used for the neighborhood compatibility analysis are inadequate. The City's ordinances do not apply to properties outside of the City's boundary. The City Council -adopted Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook states that a project requiring neighborhood compatibility is normally analyzed based on at least 20 closest homes within the same zoning district, which are also the homes most likely to be affected by the project. As the properties in RHE have their own zoning designations which are different than RPV, those homes were not included in Staff's analysis. Moreover, the early neighbor consultation is only deemed adequate if certain number of signatures of property owners are obtained by the Applicants within the City limits. Since the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and the Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits expressly limits the sampling size to RPV properties, the analysis completed for the proposed Resolution No. 2018 - Page 10 of 25 A-10 project is adequate. Nonetheless, the Planning Commission did consider the Appellants' concerns in its decision. C. Appeal Reason No. 3: The proposed project is incompatible with the neighborhood with respect to structure size, bulk and mass, height, view impairment and privacy. The proposed project was initially considered by the Planning Commission on August 9, 2016, at which time it was continued based on concerns related to the proposed structure size, bulk and mass, and privacy impacts. The Applicants revised the project to address the concerns. The redesigned project eliminated the need for a Variance, provided a reduction in structure sizes; provided enhanced architectural features and projections to reduce the appearance of bulk and mass; increased setback distances to adjacent properties; increased the distance between the two proposed residences; and the residence on Lot No. 2 was sited towards the rear of the lot and notched into the existing slope to further reduce the appearance of bulk and mass. With respect to view impairment concerns, views from 4 and 6 Harbor Sight Drive are observed in an easterly direction and consist of views of the harbor, city lights and mountains. There is no potential for significant view impairment as a result of the project from 4 Harbor Sight Drive as portions of the proposed residence that may impair a view is being constructed within the by -right (16720') height limitations. View impairment assessments are only conducted for structures over 16' in height. The proposed project does not cause a significant view impairment to 6 Harbor Sight Drive as the project impairs a small portion of the Harbor view at the right periphery while the majority of the view will be preserved. D. Appeal Reason No. 4: The proposed project will create privacy impacts to properties at 2 and 4 Harbor Sight Drive in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, which will result in loss of value to Harbor Sight residences. The project addressed privacy concerns by providing increased setbacks of 65' and 26' at the northerly side property line; eliminating balconies; and reducing the number of windows along the north building fagades, which face the properties at 2 and 4 Harbor Sight Drive. E. Appeal Reason No. 5: The proposed project grading may adversely impact geologic stability in the area. The project's Conditions of Approval included a comprehensive list of conditions that address grading activities related to circulation of dump trucks and geologic stability in the area. Specifically, Condition No. 51 requires the Applicants to obtain a Haul Route Permit from the City's Public Works Department prior to the issuance Resolution No. 2018 - Page 11 of 25 A-11 of a grading or building permit. Condition No. 58 requires that a grading plan and geotechnical report be approved by the City's Building Official and Geologist prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. F. Appeal Reason No. 6: Siting of the proposed project at center of the site results in the two propose residences being located closer together and therefore exaggerates the appearance of the scale. The siting of the proposed residences on Lot Nos. 1 and 2 were designed so as to conform to Chapter 16.04 (General Provisions) of the RPVMC, which sets forth the City's regulations for subdivisions. The placement of the residences are consistent with RPVMC Section 16.04.040 (Map Requirements) as it relates to contiguous lot areas. G. Appeal Reason No. 7: City Staff hand-picked photographs of three massive residential developments at its presentation to the Planning Commission to give the impression that such residential development was typical in the area: The City Staff's photographs of 27701, 27649 and 27591 Palos Verdes Drive East presented to the Planning Commission were intended to generally represent the varied architectural styles amongst the 20 closest residences in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Irrespectively, the Planning Commission reported at its meeting that they visited the site to view the project silhouette as it relates to the immediate neighborhood prior to making its decision. H. Appeal Reason No. 8: The Planning Commission refused to look at the late correspondence presented by an Appellant. The Planning Commission was provided with the late correspondence at the November 28, 2017, meeting, which is the same correspondence that was attached to the Appeal Letter presented to the City Council. I. Appeal Reason No. 9: The Planning Commission meeting on November 28, 2017 was not recorded and that no video , audio or written transcripts exist: Due to technical difficulties, there are no video or audio recordings of the November 28, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. As a result, City Staff prepared action -item meeting minutes, which are available on the City's website. Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts Resolution No. 2018-_; denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision, approving Vesting Tentative Resolution No. 2018 - Page 12 of 25 A-12 Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review to allow the demolition of an existing residence and the subdivision of an existing lot into two separate lots to allow the construction of a single-family residence on each lot with associated grading located at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East, subject to the conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" (Case Nos. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 and ZON2016-00120). Section 8: 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 9: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 13 of 25 A-13 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of February 2018. Susan Brooks, Mayor ATTEST: Emily Colborn, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2018-, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on February 20, 2018. CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2018 - Page 14 of 25 A-14 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review Case Nos. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East General Conditions: 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicants and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The Applicants shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the Applicants shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require Resolution No. 2018 - Page 15 of 25 A-15 approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public notification. 6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code and administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. 8. If the Applicants has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non -conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non -conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped APPROVED plans. 12. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste Resolution No. 2018 - Page 16 of 25 A-16 and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 14. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7:00 AM Monday through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 15. If construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30 calendar days, the Applicants shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. Unless required to protect against a safety hazard, temporary construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than 15 days prior to commencement of construction. 16. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the Applicants shall employ effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/ or watering. 17. This approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Grading Permit expires 24 months from the date of approval of the parcel map by the Planning Commission, unless extended per Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 16.12.040 of the Development Code. Any request for extension shall be submitted to the Planning Commission in writing and with the appropriate fee prior to the expiration of the map. 18. The Applicants shall be required to pay for the cost of services to be provided on behalf of the City by any outside consultants that have been retained by the City to render services specifically in connection with this project, in the form of a trust deposit account, prior to commencement of such services (e.g. City Engineer, City Attorney, geotechnical consultants, biologist, etc.). The Applicants shall adequately fund said trust deposit accounts prior to the commencement of services, in amounts reasonably requested by the City. In addition, the trust Resolution No. 2018 - Page 17 of 25 A-17 deposits shall be replenished within two weeks of receipt of notice from the City that additional funds are needed. 19. All costs associated with plan check reviews and site inspections for the Department of Public Works shall be incurred by the Applicants through the establishment of a trust deposit with the Director of Public Works at the time of plan check submittal or site inspection request. 20. The silhouette frames shall be removed within seven (7) days of a Planning Commission approval. 21. 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. 22. During the construction of the proposed project, the Applicants shall ensure that all onsite vehicles, equipment and materials are temporarily screened by fencing pursuant to the City's requirements as described in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. 23. The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise insulating features during construction to reduce source noise levels. 24. All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated during construction. Project Specific Conditions Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658 25. The approval of this Vesting Tentative Parcel Map allows the existing 43,677 square foot lot to be subdivided into two separate lots for the development of two single-family two-story residences. The two approved lots shall comply with the minimum lot dimensions required by the Development Code for the RS -2 Zoning District. Lot No. 1 shall contain a lot area of 20,649 square feet and measure 181' in width and 120' in depth (as measured pursuant to Code Section 17.48.020); while Lot No. 2 shall contain a lot area of 23,029 square feet and measure 137' in width and 168' in depth (as measured pursuant to Code Section 17.48.020). Resolution No. 2018 - Page 18 of 25 26. Easements shall not be granted within easements dedicated or offered for dedication to the City until after the final map is filed and recorded with the County Recorder. No easements shall be accepted after recording of the final map that in any way conflict with a prior easement dedicated to the City, or any public utility. All existing easements shall remain in full force and effect unless expressly released by the holder of the easement. 27. The proposed parcel map shall adhere to all the applicable dedications and improvements required per Chapter 16.20 of the Development Code. Prior to the Submittal of Final Parcel Map No. 72658 28. According to Section 16.20.130 of the Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act, at the time of making the survey for the final parcel map, the engineer or surveyor shall set sufficient durable monuments to conform to the standards of the Subdivision Map Act. Prior to recording the final map, the exterior boundary of land being subdivided shall be adequately monumented with no less than a two (2) inch iron pipe, at least eighteen (18) inches long, set in dirt and filled with concrete at each boundary corner. The parcel lot corners shall be monumented with no less than one-half inch iron pipe for the interior monuments. Spikes and washers may be set in asphalt pavement and lead and tacks may be set in concrete pavement or improvements in lieu of pipes. All monuments shall be permanently marked or tagged with the registration or license number of the engineer or surveyor under whose supervision the survey was made. 29. A note shall be placed on the final map stating that a geology and/or soils report has been prepared in conjunction with the subdivision. 30. All existing and proposed easements, including the proposed driveway easement and any utility easements over Lot No. 1, shall be clearly illustrated and described on the final parcel map. 31. All proposed easement documents, including the driveway easement and any utility easements over Lot No. 1, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to approval of the final map. 32. Prior to submitting the final map to the City Engineer for examination, the Applicants shall obtain clearance from all affected departments and divisions, including a clearance from the City Engineer for the following items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, correctness of certificates and signatures. 33. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property prior to approval of the Resolution No. 2018 - Page 19 of 25 A-19 final map. Prior to the Recordation of Final Parcel Map No. 72658 34. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map, the Applicants shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. 35. The final map is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. A trust deposit shall be established with the City to cover any costs of the City Engineer's review. 36. Prior to recordation, the Applicants shall supply the City with a digital copy of the Final Parcel Map in the format required by the County of Los Angeles, through ordinance 99-0080. An additional copy for the County of Los Angeles will also be required upon submittal of the Final Parcel Map to the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. After Recordation of the Final Parcel Map No. 72658 37. The Applicant shall supply the City with one mylar (if applicable) and five (5) copies of the map within five (5) calendar days after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. 38. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for the lots created and approved herein, the Applicants shall obtain addresses for each of the new lots from the City. Grading Permit 39. This approval shall allow the demolition of an existing 4,339 square foot single- family two-story residence and site improvements including a pool, retaining wall and hardscape areas in order to accommodate the construction of two new homes and associated grading on each lot, as further described below: Lnt Nn. 1 A. The construction of a new 5,927 square foot (3 -car attached garage and basement included) two-story residence. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a license land surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 20 of 25 A-20 B. Ancillary improvements including two attached covered patios, an outdoor kitchen and driveway. C. 1,528 cubic yards of associated grading, consisting of 1,272 cubic yards of cut and 256 cubic yards of fill (1,016 cubic yards of export). Im'slin\rfri A. The construction of a new 5,311 square foot (3 -car garage and basement included) two-story residence. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection. B. Ancillary improvements including a new pool & spa, attached covered patio, new driveway and an 8' high up-sloping retaining wall. C. 1,766 cubic yards of grading, consisting of 1,504 cubic yards of cut and 262 cubic yards of fill (1,242 cubic yards of export). 40. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved residences on Lot Nos. 1 and 2, as approved herein, shall maintain the following setbacks for newly created lots in the RS -2 zoning district: Front yard setback — 20' minimum Interior side yard setbacks — 10' minimum per side / 20' minimum total of both sides Rear yard setback — 20' minimum BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 41. The height of the residence on Lot No. 1 shall not exceed 22.9' in height, as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 429.1') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'); and an overall height of 26' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 426.00') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'). The height of the residence on Lot No. 2 shall not exceed 16.5' in height, as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev.435.5') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'); and an overall height of 24', as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 428') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor Resolution No. 2018 - Page 21 of 25 A-21 or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection, based on the above-mentioned instructions. 42. A minimum 3 -car garage shall be provided and maintained for each proposed residence, and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth, with a minimum of 7' of vertical clearance over the space. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth. 43. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (33% proposed for Lot No. 1 and 21 % proposed for Lot No. 2) for each lot. 44. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback areas for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall each not exceed 50% for each lot. Grading 45. New slopes shall not exceed 67% adjacent to the driveway and 35% elsewhere on the property. 46. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. 47. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water shall be applied to areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. 48. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. 49. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the Applicants' contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk material or other debris from being tracked onto the City's public roadways, and if tracked, the Applicants' contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up the impacted City's public roadways. 50. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no trucks shall be allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are Resolution No. 2018 - Page 22 of 25 A-22 maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment. 51. Prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit, a Haul Route Permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department. 52. The Applicants shall be responsible for repairs to any public street that may be damaged during the grading and/or construction of any future development of the subject parcels. 53. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the Applicants shall obtain and provide proof of approvals from the City of Rolling Hills for the improvements within their jurisdiction, such as for the construction of the proposed driveway, landscaping, grading and drainage improvements. 54. Prior to the certificate of occupancy, landscape plans for both properties shall be reviewed and the plants installed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 55. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicants shall demonstrate to the Community Development Director's satisfaction that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for the control of dust. 56. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. 57. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems. 58. Prior to issuance of any grading permit and/or building permits for the properties, a grading plan and geotechnical report shall be prepared for review and approval by the Building Official and the City Geologist. 59. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicants shall be required to submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Building Official for approval that shall include BMPs Resolution No. 2018 - Page 23 of 25 A-23 for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, the Erosion Control Plan shall include post - construction BMPs that apply to runoff from the future buildings, including roof run- off. 60. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits, the proposed sewer system for each new property shall be reviewed and approved by the Building & Safety Division. 61. Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit for new construction, the Applicants shall submit and obtain approval of a Drainage Plan by the City's Building & Safety Division and the City's Public Works Director finding that stormwater runoff as a result from the development of the subject site is designed to flow and utilize an on-site drainage system that directs runoff into the existing storm drainage system. Liahtina and Glare 62. All exterior illumination for the new residential structures on both Lots 1 and 2 shall comply with the provisions of Section 17.56.030 (Outdoor Lighting for Residential Uses) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code for each lot. 63. Prior to the issuance of building permits, all residential lighting shall be fully shielded, and no outdoor lighting shall be 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 for each lot. 64. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the specifications for the glass type, color, and reflectivity shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Community Development Director for each lot. Utilities 65. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, which shall include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for a land division. Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. 66. Prior to a grading and/or building permit issuance, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 24 of 25 A-24 67. All utilities to and on the subject lots shall be provided underground, including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy 68. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicants shall submit complete Landscape Plans to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Director of Community Development ensuring that the graded slopes are landscaped and retaining walls screened with landscaping. The final approved landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. Said plans may be required to comply with the State of California Water Efficient Landscape requirements. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 25 of 25 A-25 Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Redevelopment Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Dear Gentlemen, December 13, 2017 RECEIVED DEC 13 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This letter accompanies our request to appeal the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission recommendation to approve the above referenced project. The meeting and decision occurred on November 28, 2017 at the Hesse Park Community Center. This letter outlines the basis for our appeal and request that the approval be rescinded. • In August 2016, approval was denied and the project was returned to the RPV Planning Department for revisions in response to neighborhood criticism from both residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates (which borders the site) regarding its lack of compatibility to the neighborhood, sheer size and scale, view plane interruptions, privacy concerns, shadowing of neighbor properties and its impact on the open feel of the community. The project was supposed to be revised in keeping with these comments and with the input of all the neighbors. This was not done for the revised application. No residents of RHE were contacted and none of their views were collected or considered. This is discriminatory to the residents of RHE and ignores the reciprocity shared by both cities in matters that affect both regardless of where the project is located. The revised plan scaled the project back a little, but it is still a large, massive development that has the same impact as the earlier plan. The developers did nothing to address the specific concerns of its RHE neighbors immediately to the north. It sits on the border of our two cities and resembles no other homes except for one adjacent to it to the south. The planned development involves splitting a parcel of just under an acre into two parcels over 20,000 square feet. The two houses will each be about 4,500 square feet above ground plus large finished basements. The two houses will measure 24 and 26 feet in height, respectively, with maximum heights 29 feet and 30 feet above the lowest finished grades adjacent to the structures according to the RPV staff report. The two -1- As houses will be built on a grade over 10 feet above the neighboring homes to the north which further adds to their height and mass impacts. The front house will loom over PVDE and stand above any other residence in the area. The rear house will be built against the hillside, backfilled and have a swimming pool in the elevation above that. Both houses block harbor views from 4 and 6 Harbor Sight Drive, and also have view impacts for a number of other residents in our Harbor Sight Homeowner's Association. The also loom over 2 and 4 Harbor Sight Drive, removing any privacy on the south side (back yards) of those houses. Although there are slightly expanded setbacks to the RHE border, these houses will still be imposing due to their overall height, massing and significantly higher grade differential above the Harbor Sight lots. Interviews with real estate professionals have indicated a very substantial loss of value to the affected Harbor Sight homes due to the view loss and privacy issues. • We have attached data, photo illustrations and analytics to this letter that were presented to the RPV Planning Commission demonstrating the lack of compatibility of this project with the neighborhood. Update details have also been attached. The main points of these data are: o Almost 90% of the homes in the area, comprising a half -mile ring around the project are less than 3,500 square feet with a greater percentage of them being single story. In the RPV section that number is 82%. o Larger homes have larger lots areas than the subject proposed lots. o All of the area's larger lots (over 40,000 square feet) are in RPV. This project sets a dangerous precedent for the remaining 38 lots to be equally subdivided and developed with McMansions similar to the proposed project. This is not a trend anyone wants to see. • The staff report and the Planning Commission determined that the project met all of their zoning code requirements, did not block anyone's views and was compatible with surrounding properties, in RPV. There was no consideration of RHE properties and views in their conclusion. RPV PD staff did visit the neighboring home at 6 Harbor Sight and witnessed and acknowledged the view obstruction, privacy concerns and sheer massing of the project against 2, 4 and 6 Harbor Sight Drive, but none of this information was presented in the staff report. • The staff report to the PC included general information about the neighborhood in order to demonstrate the compatibility of the project. Only a handful of properties adjacent to the subject were considered and none in RHE. The staff report cites that 70% of adjacent landowners within 100 feet and 25% within 500 feet provided signatures on the project. Excluding RHE, this is only 4 homes and less than 10 homes, respectively, hardly an adequate sampling size for such a prominent development. -2- MM While the total lot area is just under an acre, the RPV planners determined that the buildable area (due to slopes and slope setbacks) is 20,500 located in the center of the parcel. This places both large houses closer together and exaggerating their scale. This translates to about 11,000 square feet of homes on less than a half -acre of level land and exaggerates the single building appearance of development. • In order for the site to accommodate the proposed development, substantial grading and excavation are required. In fact, 3,300 cubic yards of earth needs to be moved; 2,250 cubic yards have to be removed from the parcel. This includes general grading, basement excavations, building the rear house into the slope and installing a swimming pool in the upper rear section of the rear parcel. This is an incredible amount of earth movement and approximates the capacity of a 160 standard dump trucks. We are concerned about the geologic stability of the properties above this project. In fact, the back yard and swimming pool of 6 Harbor Sight was flooded with mud, costing thousands of dollars in repairs. One could mitigate the view issue of the front lot by grading it down 15 feet closer to the street grade, but that would require more earth removal. a From almost any view, except directly from the north, the two houses appear as a massive single structure despite being about 50 feet apart. See the attached photos. e The RPV Planning Department staff report presented pictures of three massive residences as evidence of the area's typical residential development. These were hand- picked to give this impression when, in fact, there are very few of these residences in the area. The research data shows that houses of this size are by far not typical and not compatible with the balance of the neighborhood homes. Moreover, none of these "demonstration" houses are as massive and imposing on their respective lots as the proposed development. In fact they are, as many of the few oversized homes in the area, not nearly as obvious as the subject because they are on larger parcels or are hidden away from neighbors and PVDE. • For reasons we do not understand, the Planning Commissioners refused to even look at photos showing view losses in a letter given to them before the start of the proceedings and testimony by Robert Bennet. This is also attached. • When rendering their decision, the RPV Planning Commission actually told those present that people who bought into the low-density country lifestyle were going to have to face the fact that people want larger homes and that their neighborhoods were going to change. They even drew a connection between their residents who protested the Trump Golf Course development and now are happy looking at all the greenspace. Frankly, we do not see how an in -fill two -residence McMansion redevelopment compares. -3- • This meeting was not recorded; no video, audio, minutes or written transcripts exist. Reportedly there were technical difficulties. Our investigation indicated that there were means to do either a video or audio recording from back-up devices, but it was not done. This makes it difficult to document what testimony and opinions were presented by the applicant, PD staff and speakers. More importantly, there is no record of the decisions and points of view of the Planning Commissioners other than what is written in the Notice of Decision. As a result, we feel that the approval was not substantiated or justified. This appeal is based on the fact that the project that is so obviously incompatible with the combined RPV and RHE neighborhood and threatens to change the landscape of the community from its current quiet, rural equestrian neighborhood to a more urban, higher density "McMansioned" neighborhood. The impression is that the project was pushed through without a balanced perspective and consideration of opposing views regarding how this massive project will affect both cities. By ignoring the concerns of adjacent RHE residents, the approval threatens the comity between our two cities in working through issues that affect both whether a project is in one or the other jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted, Vince Vassallo Robert Bennet 6 Harbor Sight Drive 16 Deerhill Drive Rolling Hills Estates Rolling Hills Estates Scott Ramsey Glenn Komae, HOA President 1 Harbor Sight Drive Harbor Sight HOA Rolling Hills Estates 3 Harbor Sight Drive Rolling Hills Estates Art Viewig Reg Lowell 2 Harbor Sight Drive 4 Harbor Sight Drive Rolling Hills Estates Rolling Hills Estates Attachments Data provided at the PC meeting Illustrations of view, height, mass and privacy concerns 4- November 27, 2017 Robert E. and JoAnn L. Bennett 16 Deerhill Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Octavios Silva Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 RE: OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED PATEL RESIDENCES – REVISED, 27581 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST Dear Mr. Silva and Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commissioners: Thank you for dedicated service to the residents of RPV and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. We appreciate your receptiveness to hearing from all of the citizens impacted by this proposed development. In addition to personally observing the flags outlining the shape of the proposed development, there are substantial facts and data that are most helpful to us in understanding the proposed scope and scale of this development. So you understand our position, I want to share my evaluation of this data as well as photographs so you can visualize the gross incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 1. The most obvious argument against this project is its total lack of neighborhood compatibility, for which I offer the following evidence and illustrative photographs: a. The two proposed houses total almost 13,000 square feet—immediately adjacent to homes typically in the 2,500 to 3,000 square foot range, about 5 times larger! The perception will be even worse, and the two separate oversized homes sharing a common motor court common back yard pool area on a single lot with a proposal to split into two lots. From several angles, these two houses appear like one large apartment building. Additionally, the over -code heights and location on grade uphill from the neighboring homes create an overwhelming presence. b. Additionally, the architectural style is highly incompatible with the next-door ranch style homes of Rolling Hills Estates. c. Neighbors have commented that it is difficult to assess the impact on views and compatibility because the flags provide only an outline of the proposed building's shapes. Therefore on the next four pages I have provided photos showing the current view through the flagged areas, and then superimposed a solid image showing how massive and obstructive this neighborhood incompatible development will be. M rm 7KJ ' (`a - h Y rift44. !« y :� _ �M r-.. �V =' .:�. =•.ice., 7 While the Peninsula's growing "urban forest" has reduced ocean views, this project will block what little view remains for our Harbor Sight Drive neighbors. Pruning trees across PV Drive East would open a fantastic ocean view, but the proposed oversize structure would block much of the new view. This picture shows the view loss for #6 Harbor Sight Dr. homeowners: There is a substantial view impact for #6 Harbor Sight Drive. Excessive height of very large, houses lacking neighborhood compatibility adds to neighbors concerns. 01 f F . + '-7 3 •f�5^ i i S s F s � �s� r� ,�Pai ir�r ! �j..� �.. � fy— e,Y _ �+ • 2. There area number of ways that this proposed development appears to not meet the code requirements of RPV, including: a. Given the large shared motor court and the shared rear pool, combined with the size of the houses, I question whether RPV lot coverage maximums are exceeded—as they certainly exceed by far the lot coverages of the neighboring homes. b. The proposed height variance requests seem totally unjustified, especially given the already stated impacts on views and neighborhood compatibility. 3. Finally, it appears to many that the developer is attempting to circumvent RPV general plan and building codes by applying to split their one acre lot to build two separate buildings, with common front motor court and yard and common back yard with a shared pool and recreation area on the adjacent lots— appearing very much like one monstrous mansion. For all of these reasons, we strongly request you deny approval of this project. Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Bennett 16 Deerhill Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 � ToAnn L. Bennett 16 Deerhill Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 November 27, 2017 Octavio Silva Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Proposed Patel Residences - Revised 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Dear Mr. Silva, I am writing this letter as my formal position against this project as it is proposed. I have researched the project, the site (which my home borders), RPV zoning and the neighborhood in in arriving at the conclusion that the project as described in the notification letter dated October 26, 2017 is not suited to the neighborhood The attached notes and observations detail my reasons for this conclusion 1 plan to be at the public hearing on November 28th, and I would like this letter and attachments entered into the record and project file. Last year the project was reviewed in a different configuration. The developer was seeking variances for lot split and building height. The conclusion was the that lot split did not meet zoning requirements as presented, but staff' suggested an alternative. With reference to the building height variance, it was determined that the project's building were too large and too tall in consideration of the surrounding neighborhood and it was recommended that they be scaled down. The current proposal incorporates staff's lot split recommendation, but reduced the proposed buildings by a mere 25% in size and nothing in height. In general, I find that the project attempts to put too large of residential structures together on too small building pads. While the petitioner has separated them further, the net effect of the protect still creates a large scale residential complex, sharing two parcels intended to be used by a single family. The size and scale of the buildings is like nothing we have ever seen in the neighborhood and it does not meet the test of neighborhood compatibility in any form, even in its updated and scaled down format revision. The neighborhood is comprised of very low density single family residential development. Many homes' living areas are a fraction of their lots sizes — the area average is 12%. The subjects are almost double this. Almost all the homes in the neighborhood are single story or story and a half, terraced down or into a slope. This project is two-story on a level site that is about 24 feet tall. Views will be affected from nay house. Moreover, the height of the project still threatens my neighbors' homes at 2 and 4 Harbor Sight Drive (to the north) with a lack of privacy, excessive shade and loss of open space to the south. B-11 Although represented as a development of two separate homes, this project will, in fact result in a 2 -building single family complex as evidenced by a single perimeter rear and side retaining wall spanning both lots, a single driveway, a common motor court and driveway apron, a swimming pool in one back yard, with outdoor entertaining in the other back yard. No one has addressed the potential of a perimeter privacy wall and entry gate, which I feel is highly likely given the previous observations. While the two 24 -foot high buildings will be about 50 feet apart, from the street this will not be readily noticeable due to elevation and setback and they will continue to appear to be a single residential compound to the casual observer, which is what the petitioners intend them to be. From both my back yard and house they also still appear as a single building. A simple tour of the neighborhood easily reveals that this project is not only inconsistent, but it is the antithesis of existing development; further, it is abusive and threatens to change the composition of the neighborhood if approved Worse, it establishes a precedent for other owners and potential buyers/developers of larger lots to subdivide and do the same type of incompatible redevelopment. This is an equestrian, bucolic and low density neighborhood. It reflects easy county -style living. These large, imposing Santa Barbara -style homes that are typically found in the beach communities are inconsistent with the existing neighbor homes in both Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes. Lastly, based on my updated conversations with the City of Rolling Hills Estates, such a project, as revised, could never be approved in our city in this area. Given the very low density of the RHE Harbor Sight tract, this project should be viewed with an eye for transitional zoning because it is on the boundary of both cities. There is nothing transitional about 13,000 square feet of residential buildings on a site less than an acre. Lastly, I am very concerned with the grading plan and relocation of the rear house towards the back of the property. In order to accommodate the homes' size, basements, setbacks, site improvements and slope requirements, there will be over 3,000 cu. yds. of grading of which 2,200 cu. yds. will be exported. This is an unprecedented amount of grading and removal for a corresponding amount of material from my property nor would I ask. project in this area. I am pretty sure that the city of RHE would never allow me to remove a For these reasons, I am opposed to the plan for a variance and development with two homes as outlined in the notice. I encourage permit denial or a recommendation for a project redesign and a Further reduction in scale, more consistent with the character and existing homes in the neighborhood. This would be entail lower density and single story homes. Respectfully submitted, Vince Vassallo 6 Harbor sight Drive Rolling Hills Estates B-12 NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS Observations: 1. 97.5% of all the homes in the neighborhood are less than 5,000 SF in size and almost 90% of them are less than 3,500 SF. 2. As the study area decreases, the size of homes increases and the percentage of homes less than 3,500 SF increases. However, the total number of homes over 5,000 SF is still minute. 3. Of the homes over 5,000 SF, the average lots size is over 50% greater than the proposed lot split result, meaning that larger homes tend to have larger home sites. 4. There are a number of larger home sites in the area (39), and the % mile RPV neighborhood (24) to warrant concern of setting a precedent with the proposed subdivision. Is this the future of the Eastview neighborhood, subdivision and redevelopment? Consider the issues that go with this (traffic, utilities, view loss, quality of life, a change in neighborhood character). 5. The average land utilization (bldg. area - lot area) in the neighborhood is very small at around 12%. 6. There are very few homes that have as high lot utilization as the proposed subject. The average lot size for these higher use properties is less than 20,000 SF but all study areas have an average home size less than 3,500 SF. B-13 RPV/RHE Rancho Rancho PV Study Area Nei hborhood Palos Verdes X Mile Circle A Mile Circle Total No. Homes 364 164 120 64 Average Home Size 2,530 SF 2,898 SF 3,025 SF 3,308 SF Average Lot Area 22,938 SF 29,400 SF 27,286 SF 31,938 SF % Homes < 3000 SF 79% 68% 65% 58°' % Homes < 3500 SF 89% 82% 78% 720 % Homes > 5000 SF 2.5% (9 homes) 5.0% (8 homes) 6.0% (7 homes) 9.4% (6 homes) Average Lot Size 32,598 SF 34,133 SF 34,569 SF 36,944 SF of These Homes % Lots > 40,000 SF 11% (39 lots)' 23% (38 lots)' 20% (25 lots)' 37.5% (24 lots)' Bldg Area / Lot Area Average 12.2% 10.9% 12.1% 11.3% % Hames > 25% 2.2% (8 homes) 2.4% (4 homes) 4.2% (5 homes) 4.7% (3 homes)' Average Size 4,313 SF 4,564 SF 4,846 SF 4,893 SF of These Homes Average Lot Size 16,356 SF 17,207 SF 18,342 SF 18,296 SF of These Homes (3 > 5000 SF) (2 > 5000 SF) (3 > 5000 SF) (2 > 5000 SF) For comparative purposes, the subjects have 4,490 and 4,493 SF on 20,649 and 23,029 SF lots, respectively. The lot usage is 22% and 20%. This does not include garages and basement living areas. ' 3 home sites composed of 2 lots. Lots over 40,000 SF have the potential for subdivision, based on the precedent set by the proposed lot split and redevelopment. Only 4 homes > 20%; average home size is 6,034 SF and the average lot size is 24,612 SF. Observations: 1. 97.5% of all the homes in the neighborhood are less than 5,000 SF in size and almost 90% of them are less than 3,500 SF. 2. As the study area decreases, the size of homes increases and the percentage of homes less than 3,500 SF increases. However, the total number of homes over 5,000 SF is still minute. 3. Of the homes over 5,000 SF, the average lots size is over 50% greater than the proposed lot split result, meaning that larger homes tend to have larger home sites. 4. There are a number of larger home sites in the area (39), and the % mile RPV neighborhood (24) to warrant concern of setting a precedent with the proposed subdivision. Is this the future of the Eastview neighborhood, subdivision and redevelopment? Consider the issues that go with this (traffic, utilities, view loss, quality of life, a change in neighborhood character). 5. The average land utilization (bldg. area - lot area) in the neighborhood is very small at around 12%. 6. There are very few homes that have as high lot utilization as the proposed subject. The average lot size for these higher use properties is less than 20,000 SF but all study areas have an average home size less than 3,500 SF. B-13 Comments: The subject neighborhood is characterized by smaller homes on larger lots consistent with the bucolic, equestrian nature intended by the original planners for both Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes. There are very few homes in the size category of the proposed subjects with respect to overall size and land utilization. The preponderance of data suggests that higher land utilization tends to be on smaller lots, not larger ones. Given the number of larger lots in the Rancho Palos Verdes portion of the neighborhood, setting a precedent with this lot split and redevelopment could have serious repercussions. How many of these larger lots are candidates for similar redevelopment? How will this affect the neighborhood? These are important questions. Also important is the relationship between the two jurisdictions; RHE and RPV. The average home size is greater in RPV, but so is the average home site. The proposed lot split and redevelopment encourages greater land utilization than the area currently reflects. PATEL SUBDIVISION AND REDEVELOPMENT TALKING POINTS • The proposed subdivision will be parallel to PV Dr. E, creating a front parcel and a back parcel. The back parcel will be land locked and requires an access easement of about 2,000 SF over the front parcel. • The two homes will be only 50 feet apart, but 24 feet in height. Moreover, they are arranged front to back from PV Dr. E. This will exaggerate the appearance of a single building from all sides except directly from the north. Approaching from PV Dr. E. from either the north or south, the project will still appear as a substantial single building. This is unchanged from the previous ;proposal. • The two homes have a total architectural living area of about 9,000 SF, however, they will both have an additional 2,254 SF of finished basement space. This increases the total building area to approximately 11,250 SF. Adding overhangs and balconies yields the city's total building area of 12,618 Sr. This is a reduction of approximately 25% from the previous proposal, although the combined basement area has been increased by 40%. + The 2 homes will share a driveway, a common motor court, a swimming pool and outside entertainment area. Given the shared facilities, it is apparent that this is not 2 separate homes, but, in fact, a single-family complex composed of two substantial residential buildings. This is unchanged from the previous proposal. + The development shows a single perimeter retaining wall around the back half of the properties. There are no walls between the two residences. What is not shown are perimeter walls that might continue around the rest of the properties, including the front yard and an entry gate. It is more than likely that these will be installed at some point, either during or just after construction. Can this be simply done during construction without any neighborhood feedback? Obviously enclosing the homes with a single wall will define them as a single residence of two homes. This remains a concern — the creation of a family compound. The two structures have been set back to the south and the rear one is further set back to the west so that now its ground level will be semi -subterranean. The flags and frame currently on the property only give an outward impression of the buildings' envelopes. Because one can see through them, it is difficult to project what a solid structure will look like in their place. Still, it is evident that views of some neighbors will be affected still. Construction traffic and noise will be in the area For months, possibly a year or more, given the size of the development. The proposed development will require moving 3,254 cubic yards of AM earth. Of this, about 1,000 cu. yds. will be used on-site while over 2,250 cu. yds. will be exported. The standard dump truck holds about 14 cu. yds. This equates to the capacity of about 150 standard sired dump trucks. This seems like a great deal of earth movement and is obviously due to trying to accommodate 2 homes with substantial basements on what is currently a single home site. The neighborhood, including both RHE and RPV, is an equestrian community. Neither proposed residence maintains this historic character. In fact, they do just the opposite in detracting from it and they will be among the only homes in the area do to do so overtly. They look more like beach community homes than equestrian residences, mostly due to their size (area and height). This is unchanged from the previous proposal. The proposed residences are substantial improvements, placed prominently on an elevated lot that is highly visible to the surrounding area and PV Dr. E. The massive northern and eastern faces of the structures will be highly visible to residents and visitors traveling on PV Dr. E. in either direction. These structures will end up being defining edifices for the neighborhood, which in fact, they are not. They bear little resemblance to the homes in the neighborhood; resembling instead the types of "mcmansions" one sees in RPV on the other side of the hill, in PVE or the beach communities. The proposed density (bldg. area _ lot area) is significantly more than what is in the surrounding neighborhood. Regardless of zoning, the data show that the average lot usage is substantially less than what is planned for the subjects. In general, the area average is just under 50% of the subjects' (12% versus 2256 and 20%), that is, the subjects are greater than twice as intensive of a use as reflected in the surrounding community. Moreover, the number of homes at the subject's proposed density is minimal and not at all reflective of the area. Conclusion —this proposal appears to be a warmed over revision that converts the lot subdivision to staff's recommendations, reduces the proposed buildings only slightly, shuffles them on the development sites, but otherwise ignores the requirement for development that is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The project still appears to be an oversized (for the area) 2 -building family compound that interrupts views, detracts from the country lifestyle we enjoy on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and sets up precedent for conversion of all of the larger equestrian lots in the area into mcmansion sites. B-15 I 1.1 z-11 N L O Q) Q L O N 4— i O Qj bD Q M O v }' O Ql -0 t � 41 C L O }' C +, N C E CL O .— v C > .� N N 4J � t � O ON C � O .— N ~ t 4F C d0 O •zu- au -C O �N o +-, E N U C O OD Ln LU '- O O > N L U � C fC L a ca CU E O L � Qj CU 4--+ 3 cu v • L M U i-+ N 3 0 C N 3 N t O Ln O U C N .N a� L cu E O L 3 v WE R. Pill W* 7 wA a) N �O Co ., O C N > (n a) N i (E U (n N O > Q L O O Q N O L a) O C w N >, N -wO C Q OO O Q a) O 0 O U 270 O c') Q O N a)^ (u _ �? C (n a- (U ,L _ '� L (D a) 0) C a) (n O O 4c a) a) O r N -_ c CO)CL O O O +� N cu O L c� C a) Cl) O a) P, O a) '� 0) a) M -p M CU O c6 N ca >O -0 m O /��+ W .� � •W \F O L O �� (n _C a)L U CLQ u � NY O O N " C''''�'C a) N E m 0 .0 � `� � a) UL' cu cu F. L a) cu E ;� N O ++ U— 0 cu> E C a) (n a) (n co N x a) O> O CcN — _N Q N w- -- O O (� E � � a) � >- 0 � � cu L � L o .E c: � � �c C -Op CO N — +� CO) O a) a) `� C (n Cl) cu LU Q L O (n :33 a) O > �--- �--- o ;� 00 (� a) N � p a) a) .S m O O O a) p) co ;_• C Q p }' (n�o��E cis > ca c Q a) N�CUa)0a)�� E a) o a) a) L v CD 0 (n cvt� E.�E:2 E_ N > (u — O cu L- O a) O O I— Q O a) a L M M CO � L L-0 CO L- 0 O L cu 2 N (D L E O L aF C L 0) O a) L O c yr E cu LO 4-- W r =_ .co 1_I_ � L O N U O (6 J ,> L O O Y t U W- N 0-0 03 -0 CO O N ,r O -0 co >% O O U N CO O 0 C � �U N 4 U L O Z N L to chO J i •L T 0 V y.d 9 A. `^ � V/ B-25 RECEIVED January 18, 2018 City of Rancho Palos Verdes JAN 19 2018 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 DEPARTMENT RE: Lot split for proposed Patel residences 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, This is a formal letter from the Patel family in regards to the tremendous backlash we have been receiving from surrounding neighbors primarily on the Rolling Hills Estates (RHE) side. Our family for the last 3 years has been working with both city staff and Planning Commission (PC) to conduct a lot split, in order to build separate homes on each lot respectively. During the course of this planning our family has made numerous changes to the project which incurred additional costs in the thousands, to accommodate our fellow neighbors. My family has been put through two hearings with the Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) PC over the span of 2 years; on November 28, 2017, the RPV Planning Commission granted us approval to start our project. The PC's vote was based upon their own knowledge regarding our property and all of the changes we had made to meet neighborhood compatibility. They also took into consideration all the feedback that was received from the city staff reports. It is important to take note although our property borders both RHE and RPV, our jurisdiction truly lies within RPV. The following bullets outline objections from surrounding neighbors, 95% of whom reside in RHE. At the end it is easy to see the only objections are based on "views" and based on "size," neither of which pose to be true legitimate issues for this project. Neighbors argue: "the project was supposed to be revised ... the developers did nothing to address the specific concerns of its RHE neighbors... none of their views were collected or considered" 4 There is no truth to this statement because our project was revised and the proof lies within the new plans. One can easily see how dramatically the first set of plans differ from the newest set of plans. We have spent over a year re- designing the project to implement all the feedback we have received from the neighborhood, RPV PC and city staff. Among the following changes include: y Drastically reducing the size of each home by approximately 2,000 sq. ft. Increasing the setbacks to a point that is more than what the city requires; In the revised plans, the closest setback to the North is now 27 ft. from the property lines. ➢ Both homes are set 60 ft. apart, compared to the prior plans where they were set 20 ft. apart; In comparison, the distance between our neighbor homes, Harbor Sight Drive #4 and #6, is 26 ft. and the distance between home #1 and #3 on Harbor Sight Drive is 25 ft. See "Attachments." C-1 ➢ Changing the style of both homes to provide more of an obvious "separation." The front house has a Mediterranean style look while the back house is more of an Adobe -Ranch style. Moving the front house to the south, further away from the Northern neighbors and building the back house into the hillside. My family was only granted a second hearing because we had returned with revised plans. In addition, it has been said on record that the city staff and commissioners conducted multiple site visits and in their opinion no major view obstructions were noted. ■ Neighbors argue: "neighborhood compatibility" 4 First and foremost, the RPV PC and city staff members have all agreed our project is indeed compatible to the neighborhood. The neighbors on Harbor Sight Drive are arguing "neighborhood compatibility" in regards to the square footage of our homes. RPV, the city in which we plan to reside, the city in which this hearing takes place, is filled with hundreds of homes both small and large, both single story and double. Our project homes look no different than our immediate neighbor's home who lives to the South of us at 27591 PV Drive East. In fact, this home was also the result of a lot split, which was at one point in time a project approved by the PC. It doesn't seem fair to approve one project and not the other if both projects are of similar caliber. In addition, throughout RPV it is not surprising to find a new development adjacent to an older home that has been there for 20+ years. How is a home built in 2015 compatible to a home two doors down built in 1964? Many of these scenarios exist all throughout the hill. Lastly, our proposed project is in line with the current happenings in RHE. Per RHE Planning Dept., the city now wishes to see a mix of both ranch -style and Mediterranean -style homes. This can be validated by the two newest projects in the area which will also have a similar style: The Rolling Hills Golf Course community with 112 new, 2 -story homes and the 12 new, 2 -story homes on Casaba Road. This is a total of 124 new, 2 -story homes coming into the area. See "Attachments." ■ Neighbors argue: "the revised plan scaled the project back a little" 4 Our project was scaled back drastically in order to implement all of the feedback from the community. To be precise, our project was scaled back 12+ months and has costed our family over $50,000. Neighbors argue: "it is a large, massive development" and continuously refer to our project as a "compound" 4 The objecting neighbors fail to understand we are undergoing a lot split, which clearly means the lot is being split into two separate parcels. This means we will be paying two separate property taxes, two separate utility bills and having two separate addresses. A majority of statistics the RHE neighbors have provided are of the lot in its entirety. It is not a fair perception of our project because of course the numbers all seem much larger than what they really are. Each parcel must be seen as an individual and not as a whole, for two individual families will be residing 2 C-2 there. When each home is viewed individually, it compares much more easily to other homes in RPV and RHE. The overall size of our project is much smaller compared to the new developments in RHE which includes 126 new homes being built. See "Attachments." The opposing neighbors seem to be bothered by the fact that two brothers will be residing in each of the homes because they keep referring to the project as a compound, making the project seem worse than what it really is. If two separate, non -related Caucasian families were to be moving in, we are almost positive we would not be here today. In addition, yes, our project has a shared driveway, but there is no way around fire station regulations. Also, a shared driveway in RPV appears to be more of a commonality than a rarity; all 4 homes in RPV to the South of us share a common driveway. Lastly, one opposing neighbor argued "a shared rear pool," nowhere in our proposed plan is there a shared pool. The pool clearly and obviously lies within one house only. The house with the pool belongs to the house paying the water bill. • Neighbors argue: "Interviews with real estate professionals have indicated a very substantial loss of value due to the view loss" 4 We would like to see proof of this from the "real estate professionals." Who are these professionals? Bias friends? It is safe to say most individuals will agree that our two projects can only raise the property value of our surrounding neighbors. When Terranea was built on the other side of the hill, all the property values in the surrounding neighborhoods increased tremendously. In fact, the property values still increased in spite of some homes incurring partial ocean view obstructions. Neighbors argue: "in RPV 82% of homes are less than 3,500 sq. ft .... this project sets a precedent for remaining lots to be subdivided... this is not a trend anyone wants to see" —> These numbers are inaccurate as they do not pertain to the whole City of RPV. They are based on a map created by the homeowner of #6 Harbor Sight Drive, a neighbor who is against our project. Even if these numbers proved accurate, in RPV if 82% of homes are less than 3,500 sq. ft., then our homes clearly fall onto the remaining 18% > 3,500 sq. ft. So we fall on the other side of the spectrum; there are "18%" of other homes that also fall onto this side of the spectrum. Were those families also placed under such circumstances as my family is being put through by objecting neighbors? Our houses are approximately 4,400 sq. ft. each, with this said, multiple homes within that "18%" are as big as or even bigger than 5,000-6,000 sq. ft. These larger 6,000+ sq. ft. homes that exist in RPV and the rest of the hill should be the ones referred to as "McMansions," however our neighbors continue to utilize this term throughout their arguments against us to make our project appear massive when in fact we have all seen what real "McMansions" look like on the hill. My family should have the right to do what we want with the land that we own as long as it is within the city code. Building a 4,400 sq. ft. home on a 20,000+ sq. ft. lot is very reasonable and very common in the city of RPV. In reference to our lot split "setting a precedence for other lots to be split," realistically, the precedence has already been set because several residents of both 3 C-3 cities have under gone lot splits; this has been an on-going occurrence. Each of our lots is a separate, qualified lot which meets the city code requirements. Our neighbors to the South of us in RPV split their lot about 5 years ago. The new Rolling Hills Golf course was split into 114 lots. Each lot approximating 12,800 sq. ft., with an average 2 -story home being 5,700 sq. ft. The new Casaba Road project was also split into 12 parcels with an average 2 -story home being 4,590 sq. ft., the same size as our proposed project. In reference to "this is a trend no one wants to see," one can easily turn around and say, who doesn't want to see growth and new development? It appears that our neighbors wish to freeze time and would like no other homes to look any different than what is defined as "compatible." However, if they wish to preserve this "older ranch - style feel" from the 1970s, if this is truly the case, if we all take a walk into their homes we should not see any flat screen HD TVs, wireless high-speed internet, high end appliances, iPhones, iPads and anything else that has been newly developed within the last decade, because they don't like change. Change is inevitable, this is the world in which we live. We are not moving into the neighborhood with overly done, super contemporary homes; they are beautiful homes, in a beautiful location, fit for loving families, which is what the entire hill represents. We are here to do no wrong, but our neighbors seem to disagree. ■ Neighbors argue: "PC determined the project met all requirements, did not block any views, and was compatible with surrounding properties... there was no consideration of RHE properties and views in the conclusion... city staff did visit neighboring homes and acknowledged view obstructions ... but none of this information was presented in the staff report" --> During the November 28 hearing in which our project was approved, the staff report clearly outlined, after performing multiple site visits the proposed project did not oppose any threats to major views of neighboring homes. In addition, one particular neighbor who objected during the hearing was contacted prior to the hearing date multiple times by both telephone and mail for a site visit and failed to acknowledge the city staff. This neighbor then showed up on hearing day to complain her view was obstructed. When questioned why she did not acknowledge the staff so they can come out to conduct a site visit, she had nothing to say. If that's not enough, when questioned by a member of the PC, it turns out that this neighbor's home is behind our project and in fact her home sits on a much higher grading/elevation than our homes; meaning she looks down on our homes and no view of hers is obstructed. At the end of the day the city staff members have their jobs and this is what they do on a day to day basis. They are the ones who were deemed qualified to go out and perform site visits and report back their findings to the PC. While working together, the city staff and PC made their decisions after much thought and deliberation to approve our project. The objecting neighbors should accept the decision made by the PC and should know that my family is still willing to make reasonable changes to continue to work with them instead of against them. Among the additional changes we are willing to make include: ➢ The addition of screening landscaping 4 C-4 > Installing obscure glass in bathroom windows facing the neighbors to the North Reducing the windows in the back house from 3 windows to 1 and making them day light windows which are "fogged," preventing you from seeing out. • Neighbors argue: "In order for the site to accommodate the proposed development, substantial grading and excavation are required... this is an incredible amount of earth movement and approximates the capacity of 160 standard dump trucks." 4 "Earth movement" is inevitable in any proposed project; an "incredible amount of earth movement" as dramatized by our neighbor, is ironically seen and still on going in RHE. The new renovation of the Rolling Hills Golf Course and addition of 114 new homes is requiring hundreds of dump trucks daily for the past 12-16 months on PV Drive East and PV Drive North. A block away from this project lies the Reservoir in RHE. Currently at the Reservoir, the city has been removing all of the old concrete and replacing it with new concrete; this approximates the use of 60 dump trucks driving up and down PV Drive North daily. These facts have been derived directly from the city of RHE. In reference to our project, the dump trucks will hardly affect Harbor Sight Drive; they will have easy access to our home via PV Drive East and can easily be parked on our property's driveway away from street traffic. All new developments take time, require dump trucks, and elicit noise, it's the reality of building something new. Our family plans to strive for a fast build within permitted times of course; if anything, the more dump trucks the better to faster complete the project. Neighbors argue: "we are concerned about the geologic stability of the project... backyard and swimming pool of 6 Harbor Sight was flooded with mud, costing thousands of dollars in repairs" 4 We currently reside in 2018 where all newly constructed buildings and homes are specifically engineered, inspected and built to code. Most houses nowadays are always built earthquake proof, our project included. In reference to the flooded pool, was it ever thought that maybe the house was so old and built decades ago that the poor construction of the home caused it to flood with mud. This is very unlikely to occur in a home built in this day and age. Neighbors argue: "The project was pushed through without a balanced perspective and consideration of opposing views regarding how it will affect both cities." --> The project took my family over 3 years to obtain approval, by no means was it "pushed through." Through all of the rejections we took in all the feedback from both neighbors and PC and returning to each hearing with solutions and changes to improve the project. Both city staff and PC conducted site visits and reviewed all of the facts which eventually led to their decision to approve our project. To imply that it was pushed through is almost a disrespect to the RPV PC. C-5 Neighbors argue: "By ignoring the concerns of adjacent RHE residents, the approval threatens the comity between our two cities in working through issues that affect both whether a project is in one or the other jurisdiction." 4 How can one argue that two cities can no longer get along simply because one city granted approval to allow its own habitants to build their homes? We have city, state and country boundaries and borders for a reason. At the end of the day RPV had the right to make the final decision because this is where the houses will be built. Our neighbors' statements in all of their letters are extremely over exaggerated; the PC and City Counsel of RPV approving our project is not going to cause hostility between the two cities, especially when both cities have on-going projects of similar caliber. The most unfortunate part about having to write this letter is the fact that the neighbors of RHE on Harbor Sight Drive make it seem as if my family and I are here to cause a horrific change to their lives, when in fact all we wish to do is finally live life in a home we've been waiting years to live in. Neighbors argue: "the Peninsula's growing urban forest has reduced ocean views; this project will block what little view remains for our Harbor Sight Drive neighbors." 4 The reality of it is, the "growing urban forest" will only continue to grow; sooner rather than later the trees WILL obstruct their views, they are half way doing so now; another weak argument from the opposition. What's next an appeal against the trees? In addition, multiple pictures were presented by homeowners in the previous letters trying to project "lost views." Realistically, a possible minor view obstruction may be present, however this is not in the plane of the "major views" on Harbor Sight Drive. And in a few years' time, these minor views will be obstructed by the "growing urban forest." Lastly, these pictures serve no justice because the angles at which they are shot are clearly to the advantage point of the opposing side. Site visits are key, which were conducted in this situation. Per staff and PC, approval was granted to us on the basis of the project being "non-obstructing." The staff and PC specialize in this line of work, if they deem it "non-obstructing" then it is "non-obstructing," they know how to do their jobs and they certainly do not tell us how to do ours. ■ Neighbors argue: "this is an equestrian neighborhood ... which reflects easy country -style living.... these large homes are inconsistent with the existing neighbor homes" 4 This project does not interfere with any trails or easements. In conclusion, the reality of it is, my family came to this country more than 50 years ago; we are citizens here, we pay our taxes like everyone else and we own the piece of land on 27581 PV Drive East. We completely meet all requirements for a lot split, and based on all of the site visits and reports collected by the city staff members and considerable changes in the size and scope of the project, our project was finally approved. The decision to move the project forward was made by the PC board members, who granted us approval based on several years of planning, negotiating and compromising. The PC agreed that our project does indeed meet neighborhood compatibility and is in fact within the law/code of RPV. Because all parties are in agreement thus far, we hope the City Council will also see the facts and agree that our project M. C-6 qualifies to be approved. In speaking with city officials from RHE, the officials agree this is a matter to be resolved within RPV and that they themselves do not wish to be involved. Given all of the facts, it begs to differ is there possibly another reason why our neighbors are so against us? During the initial hearing my family underwent the opening statement of one opposing neighbor started with, "hotel, Patel." Why would one approach the podium and open their argument with such a discriminating remark? Could it possibly be the color of our skin? During the November 28 meeting, one couple, who is specifically known to have rallied other neighbors against us, left the boardroom so upset and angry when the decision was made to approve our project. This couple bolted out of the boardroom threatening my family that "lawsuits were coming our way," in addition to threats that we will never be allowed to build. If somebody has the financial means to build a home, then they are going to build a home. Why would one settle for a mediocre home when they have worked hard all their lives and can strive for a bit better, bigger home, in a community that is known to be a place where people go to "retire and live a good life." We believe we too deserve to be here and the only common denominator stopping us seems to be each and every opposing neighbor and the one thing they all have in common, the color of their skin. It is unfair the opposing neighbors in RHE are targeting us specifically considering the fact that 126 brand new, 2 -story homes in their own city are being built; these homes are of course larger in size and on smaller lots. Considering the fact that our next-door neighbor underwent the same entire process we have gone through, without an appeal to the City Council, gives us grounds to believe our neighbors truly are discriminating against us. Respectfully submitted, Nital Patel Nilay Patel r 7 C-7 Newest 2 projects in the area located in RPV 1. House next door at 27591 PV Drive East 6,200 sq ft home on a lot size of 20,612 sq ft 2. House at 27975 PV Drive East 6,214 sq ft home on a lot size of 21,561 sq ft Newest 2 projects in the area located in RHE Casaba Road project: Address Lot Size Home Sq Ft. 1 Casaba Road, RHE 25485 5000 2 Casaba Road, RHE 28830 4200 3 Casaba Road, RHE 20047 4116 4 Casaba Road, RHE 20000 4131 5 Casaba Road, RHE 20060 4855 6 Casaba Road, RHE 20060 5038 7 Casaba Road, RHE 20060 4855 8 Casaba Road, RHE 20060 4718 9 Casaba Road, RHE 20032 4855 10 Casaba Road, RHE 21812 4565 11 Casaba Road, RHE 38819 4112 12 Casaba Road, RHE 37225 4637 *These homes average 4,590 sq ft on lots similar to ours. New Rolling Hills Golf Course/Homes project: 114 new homes with avg size of 5,774 sq ft. The avg lot size is only 12,806 sq ft. *These homes are much bigger than our proposal and on much smaller lots *In comparison, our homes are around 4,400 sf ft on lots over 20,000 sq ft. ****Both RHE projects include mix of Mediterranean and Ranch style homes. C-9 s �L • � V �r �#, i r it jL 21 12 j 17 �y� a eY . Sts="-•Yvep�d rk { , M1Fl � f • a # . T' i F� u. ` p# 1.0 tyi ',; 11+ �. 1 tic t' dw �� •� � `h, t.i � �' ', "}'�` 4 ref, 'd` 4 �' -., i � 'ire• ' -.+ � • �h . iR ` a '� r V 1 S�4 1, {� € '- S +r4. �,-•'�i .; � + ':a .M' ,w � J! � i� \e`�t� & Hi sL C-11 W � - Z N W o W H v %n J J O n � w = O Z_ 0p � J 6 J O d' C-11 ROLLING HILLS COUNTRY CLUB - FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT C-12 PROPOSED HOUSE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOT PLAN LOT SIZE PROPOSED ALLOWABL V AREA COVERAGE AREA AVAILABLE %AVAILABLE 1 2 CUSTOM _ C-2 16,140 12,445 7,263 5,600 4,798 4,943 293% 39.7% 2,465 657 15.3% 53% 3 C-3 13,128 5,908 4.798 36.5% 1,110 8.5% 4 A-3 12,566 5,655 4,472 35.6% 1,183 9.4% 5 A-3 13,165 5,924 4,472 34.0% 1,452 11.0% 6 CUSTOM 15,410 6,935 4,798 31.1% 2.137 13.9% 7 C-3 14,011 6,305 4,798 34.2% 1,507 10.8% 8 A-1 9,757 4,391 3,027 31.0% 1,364 14.0% 9 B-1 9.766 4.395 3.554 36,4% 841 8.6% 10 A-1 9,976 4,489 3,027 30.3% 1,462 14.7% 11 CUSTOM 16,034 7,215 4,798 29,9% 2,417 15.1% 12 A-3 11.463 5.158 4.472 39.0% 686 6.0% _ 13 A-2 11,025 4,961 4,033 36.6% 928 8.4% 14 A-3 11,256 5,065 4,472 397% 593 5.3% 15 CUSTOM 15,338 6,902 4,798 31.3% 2,104 13.7% 16 A-1 9.947 _ 4.476 3.027 30.4% 1.449 14.6% 17 B-1 9,801 4,410 3,554 36-3% 856 8.7% 18 B-1 10,156 4,570 3,554 35.0% 1,016 10.0% 19 A-1 10.820 4.869 3.027 28,0% 1.842 17.0% 20 A-3 -- 12,068 5,431 4,472 37.1% 959 7.9% 21 CUSTOM 16,385 7,289 4,798 29.3% 2,491 15.2% 22 A-1 8.621 3.879 3.027 35.1% 852 9.9% 23 A-3 _ 11,038 4,972 4,472 40.5% 500 4.5% 24 C-2 11,669 5,443 4,943 42.4% 500 4.3% 25 B-2 10.619 4.779 4.155 39.1% 624 5.9% 26 A-2 11,445 5.150 4,033 35.2% 1,117 9.8% 27 C-2 12,922 5,815 4,943 38.3% 872 6.7% 28 A-3 11.858 5.336 4.472 37.7% 864 7.3% 29 A-1 9,624 4,331 3,027 31.5% 1,304 13.5% 30 C-1 10,814 4,866 4,198 38.8% 668 6.2% 31 B-1 9;873 4,443 3,554 36.0% 689 9.0% 32 0-1 8,711 4,054 3.554 40.8% 500 5.7% 33 C-2 16,197 7,289 4,943 305% 2,346 14.5% 34 C-1 11.974 5.388 4.198 35.1% 1,190 9.9% 35 A-1 12,229 5,498 3,027 24.8% 2,471 20.2% 36 CUSTOM 14,421 6,489 4,798 33.3% 1,691 117% 37 C-2 14.100 6.345 4.943 35.1% 1,402 9.9% _ 38 A-1 8,086 3,639 3,027 37.4% 612 7.6% 39 B-1 9.343 4.204 3.554 .38.0% 650 7.0% 40 C-1 11,171 5,027 4,198 376% 829 7.4% 41 CUSTOM 14.911 6.710 4.798 32.2% 1,912 128% 42 C-2 12.100 5,445 4,943 40.9% 502 4.1% 43 B-1 9.563 4.303 3.554 37.2% 749 7.8% 44 A-1 9,146 4.116 3,027 33.1% 1,089 11.9% 45 C-1 10,828 4,873 4,198 38.8% 675 6.2% 46 A-1 8.802 3.961 3.027 34.4% 934 10.6% 47 B-1 9,053 4,074 3,554 39.3% 520 5.7% 48 C-1 12,174 5,478 4,198 34.5% 1,280 105% 49 C-1 14,536 6.541 4.198 28.9% 2,343 16.1% 50 C-3 16,855 7,451 4,798 28.5% 2,653 15.7% 51 CUSTOM 16,864 7,397 4,798 285% 2,599 154% 52 CUSTOM 23,401 9,924 4,798 20.5% 5.126 21.9% 53 G 1 14.852 6,683 4.198 28.3% 2,485 16.7% 54 A-3 12,197 5,489 4,472 36.7% 1,017 8.3% 55 A-2 11,477 5,165 4,033 35.1% 1.132 9.9% 56 CUSTOM 16.085 7.238 4,798 298% 2,440 15-2% 57 C-3 14,526 6,537 4,798 330% 1,739 12.0% 58 A-3 11,916 5,362 4,472 37.5% 890 7.5% 59 A-2 11.304 5.087 4.033 35,7% 1,054 9.3% 60 C-2 12,114 5,451 4,943 40.8% 508 4.2% 61 A-1 9.949 4.477 3.027 30.496 1,450 146% 62 C-1 12,008 5,404 4,198 35.0% 1,206 100% 63 B-2 11,580 5,211 4,155 35.9% - 1,056 9.1% 64 C-2 13.009 5,854 4,943 38.0% 911 7.0% 65 A-2 11,450 5,153 4,033 35.2% 1.120 9.8% 66 B-2 11.228 _ 5.053 4.155 37.0% 898 8.0% 67 8-1 11,405 5,132 31554 31.2% 1,578 13.8% 68 CUSTOM 17,208 7,312 4,798 27.9% 2.514 146% C-12 69 CUSTOM 22,934 9,714 4,798 20.9% 4,916 21.4% 70 C-3 13.439 6,048 4,798 35.7% 1,250 9.3% 71 C-2 12,573 5,658 4,943 39.3% 715 5.7% 72 B-3 13,115 6,020 5,520 42.1% 500 3.8% 73 A-3 12.752 5,738 4,472 35.1% 1,266 9.9% 74 B-3 13.190 6.020 5.520 41.8% 500 3.8% 75 A-2 11,284 5,078 4,033 35.7% 1.045 9.3% 76 B-2 11,276 5,074 4,155 36.8% 919 8.2% 77 B-2 11,110 5,000 4,155 37.4% 845 7.6% 78 C-1 12,851 5,783 4,198 32.7% 1,585 12.3% 79 C-1 11.510 5,180 4.198 _ 36.5% 982 8.5% 80 B-2 10,689 4,810 4,155 38.9% 655 6.1% 81 B-2 10,646 4,791 4,155 39.0% 636 6.0% 82 C-2 12,287 5,529 4.943 40.2% 586 4.8% 83 A-2 11,519 5,184 4,033 35.0% 1,151 10.0% 84 A-2 11,546 5,196 4,033 34.9% 1,163 10.1% 85 C-3 14,391 6,476 4.798 33.3% 1,678 11.7% 86 B-3 14,017 6,308 5,520 39.4% 788 5.6% 87 B-3 13,514 6,081 5,520 40.8% 561 4.2% 88 C-3 14,620 6,579 4,798 32.8% 1.781 12.2% 89 B-3 12.071 6,020 5,520 45.7% 500 4.1% 90 C-3 13,194 5,937 4,798 36.4% 1,139 8.6% 91 B-3 12,397 6,020 5,520 44.5% 500 4.0% 92 B-3 11,985 6,020 5,520 46.1% 500 4.2% 93 B-2 11,265 5,069 4,155 36.9% 914 8.1% 94 A-2 11,090 4,991 4,033 364% 958 8.6% 95 C-2 11,920 5,443 4,943 41.5% 500 4.2% 96 B-2 11,775 51299 4,155 35.3% 1.144 9.7% 97 B-2 12,247 5,511 4,155 33.9% 1,356 11.1% 98 A-3 11.887 5,349 4,472 37.6% 877 7.4% 99 A-3 12,404 5,582 4,472 36.1% 1,110 8.9% 100 CUSTOM 17,321 7,353 4,798 27.7% 2,555 14.8% 101 B-3 6,020 5,520 44.5% 500 4.0% 102 A-3 _12.418 11,407 5,133 4,472 39.2% 661 5.8% 103 B-3 12,359 6,020 5,520 44.7% 500 4.0% 104 C-3 13,947 6,276 4,798 34.4% 1,478 10.6% 105 CUSTOM 17,647 7,483 4,798 27.2% 2.685 15.2% 106 B-3 12,031 6,020 5,520 45.9% 500 4.2% 107 B-3 12,031 6,020 5,520 45.9% 500 4.2% 108 C-3 14,289 6,430 4.798 33.6% 1,632 114% 109 A-3 11,676 5,254 4,472 383% 782 6.7% 110 C-3 13,986 6,294 4,798 34.3% 1,496 10.7% 111 CUSTOM 21,200 8,952 4,798 22.6% 4,154 19.6% 112 B-1 13,717 6,055 3,554 25.9% 2,501 18.2% 113 B-1 13,428 5,964 3,554 265% 2,410 _ 17.9% 114 CUSTOM 35,052 15,146 4,798 13.7% 10,348 29.5% 1,459,920 1 656,964 499,465 TOTALCOMBINED RESIDENTIAL LOT AREA COMBINED ALLOWABLETOTAL ON ALL LOTS PROPOSED COVERAGE 157,499 TOTALAVAILABLE LOT AREA C-13 I Z �w aw � o a a Z O V ¢ Z �- O V C-14 ►V C-15 U z I�! m x ? D, C-15 U z I�! m DATE: JULY 6, 2015 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OVERVIEW Staff Rep City of Rolling Hills PLANNING COMMISSION DAVID WAHBA, PLANNING DIRECTOR AGENDA � r � �uN - 6 2015 ITEM No. - B Estates-� PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA -19-15. APPLICANT: CHADMAR HOMES. LOCATION: 26311 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST. The following is a request to approve the architectural styles for the proposed homes at Chandler Ranch, as required by Condition of Approval No. 98 of City Council Resolution No. 2260, approved on July 26, 2011, for the Chandler Ranch and Rolling Hills Country Club (RHCC) project, consisting of 114 single family homes, a new Country Club facility, and an 18 - hole Golf Course, all located on approximately 228 acres. BACKGROUND, On May 26, 2015, the City Council approved Final Map No. 61287, formally approving the project, including an Improvement Agreement (project infrastructure improvements), related bonds, and the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the residential homes. As part of the project (Golf Course area) lies within the City of Torrance, they too approved the Final Map on June 2, 2015. On June 1, 2015, the PC approved the Clubhouse architecture (Ranch style) as required by Council Resolution No. 2260 (Condition of Approval No. 99). On June 30, 2015, escrow closed on the entire project with Chadmar Homes and Rolling Hills Country Club now being the primary land owners. Chandler's will continue to own a parcel of land (Map 72793), located in the City of Torrance (at the northwestern corner of the project, adjacent to their mobile home development in the City of Torrance), which is restricted from development and preserved as open space. Lastly, the grading permit and retaining wall permits were issued upon close of escrow on June 30'h. As of this writing, the Chandler Landfill has permanently closed as well as the Golf Course. Grading is expected to commence in the next week or so and should be completed within the next 18 months, including the new Golf Course. Construction of the new Country Club facility is expected to commence by the end of this year and should be completed within two years from commencement. On July 26, 2011, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2260 granting a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (No. 61287) for the above -noted project, and all project entitlements. This same approval, however, included a Condition of Approval (No. 99) that the Planning Commission review and approve the architecture for the Clubhouse, noting that it be of a more Ranch architectural style rather than Andalucia (Mediterranean/Spanish style) as originally presented. esidential Lot Area of Residential Open Total Land Area w/o streets 70% Open 30% Maximum Covered Space Area for Buildings and (w/o streets) Structures (w/o streets) Space 114 Lots 1,459,920 sq.ft. 734,208 sq.ft. 2,194,128 sq.ft. 1,535,890 sq.ft. 658,238 sq.ft. (33.51 acres) (16.86 acres 50.37 acres 35.26 acres (15.11 acres 12,806 sq. t. average area er lotlot (.29 acre per lot) 6,440 sq. ft. average area per (.15 acre per lot) _ 19,247 sq. ft. average area per lot 13,472 sq. ft. average area per lot 5,774 sq. ft. average area per lot (.44 acre per lot) (.31 acre per lot) -- - J (.13 acre per lot) Proposed home sizes range from 3,600 sq.ft. to about 5,400 sq.ft. livable area, plus two to three garage spaces, and are divided up into three product types. Product Type "A" has three different floor plans with a square footage between 3,600 sq.ft. and 3,800 sq.ft. Product Type "B" also has three different floor plans with a square footage between 4,100 sq.ft. to 4,600 sq.ft. Lastly, Product Type "C" also has three different floor plans with a square footage between 4,800 sq.ft. and 5,400 sq.ft. Among the three product types, there are nine different floor plans and then four different architectural styles, which will provide a diverse product range throughout the Tract. The 16 remaining custom lots (among the larger lots averaging about 16,0Qf3 sg.ft.) will need to conform to a similar square footage, probably not exceeding 6,00© soft_ (to be based on the allowable coverage per lot) and architectural styles and massing of the approved homes in the Tract. The previously -approved home square footages in 2011, which also had three product types, ranged from 2,700 sq.ft. to 6,500 sq.ft. Note that the new range in home square footages are from 3,625 sq.ft. to 5,377 sq.ft. The designated 16 custom home sites, which average about 16,000 sq.ft. in area, and of the larger lots in the tract, may exceed the maximum 5,377 sq.ft., but not more than approximately 6,000 sq.ft. (in two stories) as further outlined in the attached table, such that the total project's coverage would still not exceed 30% for buildings and structures. It is important to note that since this is a cluster -type master -planned community in the RPD Zone, the homes are not subject to the typical 25' front yard, 10' side yard, and 35' rear yard setbacks, the height -to -setback ratio for second stories, lot coverage requirements for pools and hardscape patios (not defined as structures), etc. Hence, approximately half of the homes will have setbacks of 15' in the front, 5' on the sides and 20' in the rear, as they are more clustered together similar to that of patio homes, rather than a traditional half -acre lot found elsewhere in the City. Note that these types of setbacks were approved as part of the original project's design. The challenge here is more how to address an equitable building and structure coverage allowance on a per lot basis, so that the total Tract does not exceed 30%. _A�j_ summarized in the above -table, the-AHowed coverage by buiidinas and structures averaged over - 114 lots is 5,774 sq.ft. The architect has developed a chart (attached) that provides an actual allowed lot coverage for each lot, such that smaller lots will typically have smaller areas in which to cover and larger lots, larger areas to cover. Outside the home's footprint, the smaller lots would still provide a minimum of 500 sq.ft. for additional outdoor structures. The original homes aoom_ced_fcr the Droiect all had a veru distinct Spanish/Mediterrane arc iitectural style, which was re uired to be revised to incor orate some Ra h st les, including t e architecture for the Country Club building to be more reflective of the City's preferred architectural style. In working with the applicant (Chadmar Homes) and the architect (Robert Hidey Architects) over the last several months, four architectural styles for the homes are now proposed. They are California Ranch, European Ranch, Adobe Ranch, and Interpretive Ranch. The Adobe Ranch style uses a concrete or red clay "S" tile roof and is somewhat of a Spanish 3 C-17 BRITT HUFF Mayor JUDY MITCHELL Maya Pro Toni VELVETH SCHMITZ Council Member FRANK V. ZERUNYAN Council iWember STEVEN ZUCKERMAN Council Member DOUGLAS R. PRICHARD City Manager January 31, 2018 Mayor Susan Brooks and City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 CITY OF ROILING MILLS ESTATES 4045 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH • ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 TELEPHONE 310.377.1577 FAX 310.377.4468 RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov RE: Proposed lot split and two -home construction at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East, RPV. Dear Mayor Brooks and City Council: On behalf of the Rolling Hills Estates City Council, I wish to bring to your attention a number of concerns regarding the proposed development referenced above. It is our understanding that this application has been appealed by several adjacent RHE residents and will be heard by your Council on February 20, 2018. As you know, we have long valued our cooperative working relationship, particularly on issues common to our jurisdictional boundaries. In this case, we hope that the spirit of cooperation we enjoy will find your Council receptive to the concerns raised by our residents. In similar situations, our deliberations have always taken into account concerns raised by residents of our neighboring jurisdictions, most recently in the case of the need for view protection for an RPV resident on Blackhorse Road, who had issues with a proposed second story addition in RHE. You will find attached a letter from Planning Director David Wahba, which was received by your Planning Department in July of 2017, identifying concerns with this project. While some of these concerns may have been addressed in the revised plans recently approved by your Planning Commission, many have not been fully addressed, particularly to the satisfaction of the adjacent RHE residents on Harbor Sight Drive. D-1 The City of RHE would encourage you to thoroughly review the application with particular attention to view preservation, privacy protection, reduction in massing, and increased setbacks from property lines to preserve light and air between homes. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at City Hall at (310) 377-1577 or by email at Britthcarollinghillsestatesca. ov. You may also contact Planning Director David Wahba at (310) 377-1577 x 103 or by email at Davidw(c�r�,rollinghillsestatesca.g_ov. Sincerely, Britt Huff Mayor City of Rolling Hills Estates CC: RHE City Council Doug Willmore, RPV City Manager LBROOKS.27581.P V DE.RPV D-2 July 25, 2016 Mr. Octavio Silva Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Telephone -(310) 377-1577 Fax -(310) 377-4468 www.RollingHillsEstatesCa.Gov RE: Proposed lot split (PM No. 72658 (SUB 2014-00003)) and two -home construction (ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East, RPV. Dear Mr. Silva: The purpose of this letter is to express the City of Rolling Hills Estates' concerns over the proposed development as referenced above. You should have received written correspondence from several adjacent property owners to this project, located on Harbor Sight Drive, in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. More specifically, the proposed project directly impacts the homes located at #2 (Mr. and Mrs. Reginald Lowell), # 4 (Mr. and Mrs. Art Vieweg) and #6 (Mr. Vince Vassallo) Harbor Sight Drive. Since the proposed development sits directly uphill from the adjacent properties in Rolling Hills Estates, any type of development beyond the relatively small single story home that presently occupies the property is going to have a potential negative impact on the downhill properties in terms of massing, privacy and blockage of light and air. While the City of Rolling Hills Estates understands that this project is not in our City, and that the proposed development may comply with many of the requirements in Rancho Palos Verdes, we would hope that you would review the detailed correspondence sent to you by our residents and address their concerns in as much as possible. A positive outcome to this project might include, but is not limited to, the proposed home(s) being reduced in size from nearly 8,000 sq.ft. to under 5,000 sq.ft., the lowering of plate heights to no more than 9', and the reduction of the size and length of the second story of the home proposed to the north to reduce its massing and privacy concerns expressed by Rolling Hills Estates' residents. Lastly, an increased setback from the common boundary D-3 line, recognizing that it is 23' as proposed, may also help to achieve some of our residents' concerns. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at City Hall at (310) 377-1577, ext. 103 or by email at davidw@rollinghillsestatesca.gov. Sincerely, ZAVO�� David Wahba Planning Director CC: Mr. Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development, RPV RHE Mayor & City Council 27581 pvde.rpv.ltr ME Octavio Silva From: daddyos_band <daddyos_band@dslextreme.com> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 11:55 PM To: Octavio Silva Subject: Appeal of approval of variance at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East I am in favor of the appeal as letting the approval stand will allow a variance blocking the views that the current neighborhood paid for and in fact the neighboring street (Harbor Sight Drive) is named for. The City Council should overturn the Planning Commission's approval of this one lot owner's plans to rob their neighbors of their view of the harbor. I currently plan to appear at the meeting. Thank you. John Miller 10 Harbor Sight Drive Rolling Hills Estates 562-208-8748 D-5 Octavio Silva From: Sent: To: Subject: Octavio Silva Associate Planner 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Bradley Brunskill <bbrunsk@aol.com> Monday, February 05, 2018 8:54 AM Octavio Silva Case No. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273, ZON2016-00120, Location: 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Brad Brunskill 7 Harbor Sight Drive Rolling Hills Estates California 90274 (310) 831-3655 Re: Case No. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273, ZON2016-00120 Location: 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Property Owner: Nital and Nilay Patel Applicant: Timothy Racisz I am responding to a notice dated January 13, 2018 regarding the above case number. I am writing in support of the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of this project. I would like to request that this application and height variation not be approved. The proposed structures would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The scale of these buildings is much larger than the surrounding homes. One of them is 2 %2 times the size of my own home, and the other is almost 3 times the size of my home. They would tower above the homes that they back up to. In addition, they would partially obstruct the view of my neighbors at 6 and 8 Harbor Sight Drive. Brad Brunskill Octavio Silva From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Michael Brunskill 7 Harbor Sight Drive Rolling Hills Estates California 90274 (310) 831-3655 Octavio Silva Associate Planner 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Michael Brunskill <brunskm@gmail.com> Tuesday, February 06, 2018 6:40 PM Octavio Silva Case No. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273, ZON2016-00120, Location: 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Follow up Completed Re: Case No. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273, ZON2016-00120 Location: 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Property Owner: Nital and Nilay Patel Applicant: Timothy Racisz I am responding to a notice dated January 13, 2018 regarding the above case number. I am writing in support of the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of this project. I would like to request that this application and height variation not be approved. The Planning Staff report was incomplete in that it did not include an assessment of the impact of the height variance on all adjacent properties. Specifically, the report failed to comply with RPV Statute, Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e), which says in part: " iv. The area of a proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height, as defined in subsection B of this section, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel." The staff verbal presentation at the planning commission meeting emphasized that it assessed the views on adjacent parcels in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes only. The RPV statute does not specify that adjacent properties in bordering cities be excluded. The only language addressing bordering cities is in the RPV Height Variations Guidelines document, and only addresses early neighbor consultations. Since those consultations were conducted, the point is moot. It is obvious that had the impact on the views of adjacent properties been considered, the height variance would not have been approved. Additionally, the Planning Commission relied on the applicant attorney's representation of how the City of Rolling Hills Estates would view the project. The attorney said that he was a member of the City of Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission. This is a clear and flagrant conflict of interest, which the Planning Commission should have disallowed. Michael Brunskill D-7 Octavio Silva From: Monica Russo <mrusso1188@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 10:21 PM To: Octavio Silva Subject: Patel residence Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello, my name is Monica Russo. I reside at 2145 Avenida Aprenda, Rancho Palos Verdes 90275. I am sending this email to approve the Patel family residence. WOO Octavio Silva From: sonia russo <srussol3@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 10:20 PM To: Octavio Silva Subject: The Patel residence Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hello, I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and wanting to reach out and say that I absolutely approve of the Patel family and am happy to have them be a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. Thank you, Sonia Russo 2145 Avenida Aprenda Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275 310-519-0740 Sent from my Whone FFa-Wo Octavio Silva From: Efthemios Tsiboukas <theemeoh@icloud.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 10:20 PM To: Octavio Silva Subject: Patel family residence Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I'm Efthemios Tsiboukas and I live in rpv at 43 1/2 Avenida Corona. I approve the Patel family residence to build at they're location on 27581 Palos Verdes dr east rpv .... Thanks you Efthemios Tsiboukas D-10 Octavio Silva From: Lisa Marie Taft <Imbooty@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 9:38 PM To: Octavio Silva Subject: Patel Homes in RPV Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Octavio, I'm a resident of RPV (5405 Manitowac Drive) and I would like to extend my support in favor of allowing the Patel's to build their homes off PV Drive East. Thanks, Lisa Marie Booty CRNA 1 D-11 Octavio Silva From: Dallas Taft <dmtaft@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 9:31 PM To: Octavio Silva Subject: Patel Residence on PV Drive East Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hello Mr. Silva, my name is Dallas Taft and I own a home at 27810 Saddle Rd RHE which is in the Larga Vista neighborhood just across the road from where the Patel's are proposing to build their new homes. I'm familiar with the style, size etc. of the homes being proposed and I'd just like to voice my support in favor of allowing the Patel families to build their homes. I think the look of 2 newly constructed homes that matches the style of their nearest neighboring home will be an improvement. Regards, Dallas Taft D-12 Octavio Silva From: Mike Patel <mpate1021@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 9:27 PM To: Octavio Silva Subject: Patel residence approval (27581 Palos Verde Dr. east) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hello I am sending this email to encourage the approval of the Patel resident development at 27581 Palos Verde Dr. east. I am a resident and have built a home in PV, and I have seen the new developments increase home owner values. I support the development of the Patel residence, thank you. Mike Patel 2133 Chandeleur Dr. Rancho Palos Verde, 90275 562 818 1606 email: rn atcl(CI tr uniail.k_ow D-13 From: Ramin Rabii To: Octavio Silva Subject: Approval of the Patel Family Residence Date: Saturday, February 10, 2018 9:29:53 PM To whom it may concern, I have known the Patel family for many years, and they are a fine, upstanding people. They are a positive addition to any community. I approve of the Patel family residence. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Best regards, Ramin Rabii 27018 Woodbrook Rd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 D-14 November 29, 2017 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43, conditionally approving Vesting Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the subdivision of an existing lot at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East into two separate lots and to allow the development of one single-family dwelling unit on each lot. Lot No. 1 will be 20,649 square feet in area and improved with a 5,927square foot two-story residence with 1,528 cubic yards of grading. Lot No. 2 will be 23,029 square feet in area and improved with a 5,311 square foot two-story residence with 1,766 cubic yards of related grading (Case Nos. SUB2014-0003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120). LOCATION: 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East PROPERTY OWNERS: Nital & Nilay Patel Said decision is subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in the attached P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43. This decision may be appealed, in writing, 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 notice, or by December 13, 2017. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30PM on December 13, 2017. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Octavio Silva, Associate Planner at (310) 544-5234 or vie e-mail at octavios(aD-rpvca.gov. Ara r rant CP Director of Community Development Attachment: P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5228 / FAX (310) 544-5293 WWW RPDA SOV 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER RFL I P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VESTING PARCEL MAP NO. 72658, HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING VACANT LOT AT 27581 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST (PVDE) INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS AND TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON EACH LOT. PARCEL NO. 1 WILL BE 20,649 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND IMPROVED WITH A 5,927 TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH 1,528 CUBIC YARDS OF RELATED GRADING. PARCEL NO. 2 WILL 23,029 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND IMPROVED WITH A 5,311 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH 1,766 CUBIC YARDS OF RELATED GRADING (CASE NOS. SUB2014-0003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120). WHEREAS, on July 14, 2014, the applicant submitted an application for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658, Variance, Height Variation, Grading, and Site Plan Review to subdivide an existing lot located at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) into two separate lots (Case No. SUB2014-00003) in order to construct two new residences on each lot (Case Nos. ZON2014- 00273 & ZON2016-00120); and, WHEREAS, on August 8, 2014, based on preliminary review, Staff deemed the applications incomplete for processing. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information by Staff and the City Engineer, Staff deemed the project complete on May 25, 2016; and, WHEREAS, on June 30, 2016, the public notice of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Variance, Height Variation and Grading Permit applications was sent to the property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies. Additionally, a public notice was published on the same day in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2016, 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 and at which time the Planning Commission directed the applicant to redesign the proposed subdivision to comply with zoning requirements, thereby eliminating the need for a Variance and to modify the design of the two new residences with respect to reducing the structure sizes, bulk and addressing privacy concerns. The Commission continued the public hearing to September 27, 2016. WHEREAS, on September 27, 2016, the Commission considered the continued item and accepted Staff's recommendation to receive and file a status report to continue the public hearing on the requested applications to a meeting date uncertain, as the applicant requested additional time to complete their redesigned project; and, WHEREAS, on February 27, 2017, the applicant submitted a redesigned project requesting an application for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation, Grading, and Site Plan Review to subdivide the existing lot located at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) into two separate lots (Case No. SUB2014-00003) in order to construct two new P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 1 of 18 E-2 residences on each lot (Case Nos. ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120), as well as eliminating the initial Variance request and the need for the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, WHEREAS, the applicant submitted revisions on multiple occasions, with the final submittal provided on September 27, 2017. Subsequently, Staff deemed the applications complete for processing on October 26, 2017; and WHEARAS, on October 26, 2017, the public notice of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Height Variation and Grading Permit applications was re -issued and sent to property owners within 500' of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published on the same day in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; 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), determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA, under Article 19, Sections 15303(a) (Construction of Single -Family Residence) and 15315 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was no longer required as part of the Applicants' proposal. Specifically, the project proposed to demolish an existing single-family residence to accommodate the construction of two new residences and the requested subdivision involves a property in an urbanized area zoned for residential, which is being subdivided into two parcels and is consistent with the General Plan and applicable zoning requirements in the RS -2 zoning district and all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available; and, WHEREAS, after notices were issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 28, 2017, 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 project involves Vesting Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the subdivision of an existing lot at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East into two separate lots and to allow the development of one single-family dwelling unit on each lot. Lot No. 1 will be 20,649 square feet in area and improved with a 5,927square foot two-story residence with 1,528 cubic yards of grading. Lot No. 2 will be 23,029 square feet in area and improved with a 5,311 square foot two-story residence with 1,766 cubic yards of related grading Section 2: Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658 complies with the requirements set forth in the State's Subdivision Map Act, the Development Code and other applicable sections of the City's Municipal Code, because the Planning Commission finds that: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan. More specifically, the subject parcel is located within the General Plan land use designation of "Less than one dwelling unit per acre" (:51 d.u./acre). All new residential lots within the <-1 d.u./acre density range must maintain a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, which is also the minimum P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 2 of 18 E-3 lot size required for properties in the RS -2 zoning district. As proposed, Lot Nos. 1 and 2 will be 20,649 square feet and 23,029 in size, respectively, which is consistent with the s1 d.u./acre General Plan land use designation, and RS -2 Zoning District. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan designation of "Less than one dwelling unit per acre" (:51 d.u./acre). More specifically, the General Plan requires new lots to comply with the lot dimensions listed in the Development Code under the appropriate zoning district. The subject parcel is located within the RS -2 zone district. Based on the existing zoning, the proposal complies with the requirements set forth in the Development Code. Specifically, code requires that new lots within the RS -2 zone district are at least 20,000 square feet in size, and have a minimum lot width 90' and a minimum lot depth of 120'. Lot No.1 is proposed to be 20, 649 square feet with a width of 181' and a depth of 120' and Lot No. 2 is proposed to be 23,029 square feet with a width of 168' and a depth of 137', thus meeting the minimum lot dimension requirements. Additionally, both Lots 1 and 2 will have ingress and egress from PVDE, with an easement over the driveway on Lot No.1 to allow ingress and egress, fire access and utilities for Lot No. 2. C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the development. More specifically, the proposal complies with the requirements set forth in the Development Code as stated above. Additionally, each of the proposed lots will have a contiguous lot area that exceeds 6,600 square feet, which is the minimum required for a RS -2 zoning district. Pursuant to Section 16.04.040.D of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC), the contiguous lot area is the gross lot area less slopes steeper than thirty-five (35) percent and the required setback areas. Based on the applicant's plans, the size of the contiguous lot area on each of the vacant lots will be large enough to accommodate a single-family residence that complies with the standards set forth in the Development Code for a RS -2 zoning district, as it pertains to structure size, lot coverage and setbacks. Further, access will be provided from PVDE and utilities are available for connection from existing lines in the public street right-of-way. Project plans have been presented to the City of Rolling Hills Estates for approval of the requested driveway and associated grading, as the property has driveway access from PVDE in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. A Condition of Approval has been added that requires the Applicants to demonstrate approval of the proposed improvements within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, prior to issuance of any Grading and Building Permit. Additionally, access will be provided from Palos Verdes Drive East, with an easement over Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2. D. The proposed subdivision and associated improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or harm wild life or their habitat. Specifically, the subdivision will create two lots, which will allow for the construction of two new residential structures in an area that has been previously developed for residential purposes In addition, according to the General Plan's Biotic Species Map, the subject property is not located within an area designated as a blue line stream or an area that contains major wildlife. Further, according to the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), no Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species have been identified on the subject property and/or any nearby properties. Therefore, Staff believes that this finding can be made since the proposed project and any potential future development will not cause significant damage to the environment or injure any fish or wildlife. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. More specifically, the proposed residential structures will have to be constructed in conformance with the City's Development Code standards and require P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 3 of 18 E-4 approval by the Building & Safety Division to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. Additionally, the City's Geotechnical Consultant has reviewed and provided an "in -concept" approval of the geotechnical reports that were prepared for the proposed parcel map. Furthermore, prior to grading and building permits being issued by the Building & Safety Division, a more detailed site and project -specific geotechnical report will need to be approved by the City's Geotechnical Consultant. As for drainage, Section 16.20.050 of the Development Code requires that the Applicants mitigate any potential impacts caused by drainage flow from the subject property to any adjacent properties. Staff will incorporate conditions that require the Applicants to address all drainage flow concerns prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed development, should the subdivision be approved. With regards to utilities, the existing parcel is directly adjacent to a public street (PUDE) that will permit connection to existing water lines that are serviced by the California Water Service Company and which currently serve the existing surrounding residential development. With regards to wastewater, each of the new lots will be required to connect to existing sewer lines, the location and design of which will be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Estates because these utilities are located in their jurisdiction. Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that this finding can be made since the proposed subdivision will result in lots that can sustain residential development that will not cause any serious public health problems. F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not be in conflict with the easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision since there are no existing or proposed public easements on the subject lot. Section 3: A Height Variation is approved for the construction of a new 5,927 square foot two- story residence (basement and attached garage included) on Lot No. 1 and a new 5,311 square foot (garage and basement included) two-story residence, both of which will exceed the 16720' height limitation for lots with a building pad at a proposed height of 26' for the residence on Lot No. 1 and 24' for the residence on Lot No. 2 because: A. The Applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process guidelines and procedures established by the City Council by obtaining signatures from 70% of the landowners within 100 feet and 25% of the total number of landowners within 500 feet (including those within 100 feet). B. The City's General Plan, adopted June 26, 1975, identifies viewing points (turnouts along vehicular corridors for the purposes of viewing) and viewing sites (public site areas, which due to their physical locations on the Peninsula, provide a significant viewing vantage) within the City. Due to the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structures are not visible from a public viewing area or viewing site, as defined by the General Plan. Additionally, the subject property is not located within the City's Coastal Specific Plan, and there are no public trails that traverse the property. C. The proposed structures are not located on a ridge or promontory. The proposed residence would be located on an existing building pad, which is not on a prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on two sides. D. The proposed new structures that are above sixteen feet in height, as defined in Section 17.02.040(B) of the Development Code, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. Views of the ocean, harbor and city lights are observed by the adjacent properties in a west and south P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 4 of 18 E-5 direction. Given that the building pads of the properties to the west of the subject property are elevated approximately 55-0" to 60'-0" higher than the subject property and the properties to the south of the subject property are elevated approximately 25-0" to 30'-0" higher than the subject property, the westerly and southerly neighbors will continue to have a view over the proposed residences without any adverse impact caused by the proposed project. The project site abuts residential properties along Harbor Sight Drive in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, which expressed view concerns with the Applicants' initial submittal. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has a View Ordinance, which protects views of properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, but does not apply to residences outside of the City. E. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by considering: (a) the amount of view impairment caused by the proposed new structures that are above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) the amount of view impairment caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. There will be no view impairment to the neighboring properties caused by the proposed project due to the property's building pad elevation and the direction of view. Similar construction at 27591 PVDE, 27601 PVDE and 27649 PVDE would not result in a significant cumulative view impairment because of the sloping topography of the neighborhood. Specifically, these properties are located on building pads that are approximately 25'-0" to 40'-0" lower in elevation than the properties located to the west, which would have viewing areas above the roofline heights of the two proposed residences. Furthermore, the property immediately adjacent to the subject property (27591 PVDE) is already developed with a two-story residence. F. The two revised residences comply with all other Code requirements, including, but not limited to the minimum required setbacks, parking, and maximum allowed lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning district. G. The proposed structures are compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style, setbacks, bulk and mass, number of stories and open space between buildings. Specifically, the proposed project complies with the maximum lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning district (40%), as Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 propose a lot coverage of 33% and 21 %, respectively. An aerial survey of the surrounding neighborhood conducted by Staff indicated that many of the residential properties in the immediate neighborhood are at or near the same lot coverage as being proposed on Lot Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, the revised design has reduced the overall structure sizes of the two new residences. Specifically, the revised design proposes a 5,927 square foot (1,437 square foot basement included) and a 5,311 square foot (818 basement included) two-story residence on Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2, respectively. Given that the basement areas are below grade, the structure size of the residences on Lot Nos. 1 and Lot 2 that will in effect be visible, will be 4,490 square feet and 4,493 square feet, respectively. Although the size of the proposed residences will be larger than the average in the immediate neighborhood, the two proposed residences are not the largest homes in the neighborhood (9,025 square feet). In terms of architectural style and materials, the proposed design of the residential structures use elements found in various architectural styles like Spanish Colonial, Monterey and Mediterranean/ Italian Renaissance. The residences within the immediate neighborhood vary in architectural style, borrowing elements commonly found in Spanish Colonial, Monterey, Mediterranean/ Italian Renaissance and California Ranch. The roof designs include gable, hip, shed and flat that P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 5 of 18 E-6 use materials such as composition shingle and ceramic tile. The roof pitches and overhangs also vary in size. The exterior finishes of the neighboring properties are either stucco or wood siding and includes natural rock and brick accents. With regards to open space between structures, an aerial review of the closest 20 homes, indicates that the open space between structures varies from property to property, as a result of asymmetrical lot conditions in the area and the construction of customized homes, and the proposed project does not create an anomaly in terms of open space between structures. In terms of number of stories in the area, there are existing two story residences in the area, so the two new two-story residences are not introducing a new element to the neighborhood. Lastly, with respect to the project's bulk and mass, the project has been redesigned to eliminate an "compound appearance" of the project by providing increased setbacks between the two residences In addition, the design of the two residences provide architectural features and projections that reduce the overall bulk and mass. As part of the resubmittal, the project has been modified so that the proposed residence on Lot No. 2 is sited towards the rear of the lot and will be notched into the existing slope, so as to further reduce the bulk and mass of the overall project. H. The proposed new structures that are above sixteen feet in height do not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the occupant of abutting residences, as the proposed second story balconies on the proposed residences on Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 are positioned and designed, so as to face a public street (Palos Verdes Drive East). In addition to the above, the north elevations of the proposed residences incorporate windows along the second stories. While these windows face properties to the north of the project site, along Harbor Sight Road within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the proposed residences provide a large enough side yard setback minimizing potential privacy issues. Specifically, the residences on Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 provide a 65' and a 26' side yard setback to the northerly side property line. Section 4: Approval of a Major Grading Permit to allow a total of 3,683 cubic yards of grading (389 cubic yards will occur in the City of Rolling Hills Estates under a separate entitlement process) to accommodate the construction of two residences of each of the proposed lots at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East is warranted because the Planning Commission finds that: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The primary use of the existing subject lot is residential as identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning map. The applicant is requesting to subdivide the existing lot to accommodate the development of each lot. The requested Grading Permit is to allow a total 3,683 cubic feet of project related earth movement consisting of 1,528 cubic yards of grading for Lot No. 1 and 1,766 cubic yards of grading for Lot No. 2, as well as the construction of an 8' high up-slope retaining wall at the rear of the residence on Lot No. 2. The proposed grading is to accommodate the construction of two new residential structures with basement areas, driveway access to the two properties and related site improvements including a pool, patio and hardscape areas, which do not exceed what is necessary for the permitted use of the lot. B. The project grading includes excavation under the building footprints of the two proposed residences. The subject property survey indicates existing grade elevations in the area of the existing building pad range between approximately 427.00' at the east end of the existing building pad and 431.00' at the west end of the existing building pad. The proposed finished grade of the building pads will be approximately 426.00' at the east end of the proposed pads, and 427.00' at the west end of the pads. The proposed grading P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 6 of 18 E-7 under each lot will result in lower building pads for the two proposed residential properties by approximately 1 to 3 feet. The view of the harbor and city lights that the adjacent neighbors currently enjoy is in an easterly direction. Given that the building pads of the proposed residences will be lowered and that the building pads of the properties to the west of the subject property are elevated approximately 55'-0" to 60'-0" higher than the subject property and the properties to the south of the subject property are elevated approximately 25-0" to 30'-0" higher than the subject property; the westerly and southerly neighbors will continue to have a view over the subject property without any adverse impact caused by the proposed project. C. 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 requested grading for the proposed subdivision is to accommodate two new residences within the City's permitted height requirements of 16730' for an upslope lot. The ridgeline of the structure on Lot 1 will be 16' above the highest existing grade adjacent to the structure, and 29' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure. The ridgeline of the structure on Lot 2 will be 15.66' above the highest existing grade adjacent to the structure, and 30' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure. The requested grading is to notch the proposed residences into the slope to minimize its visual appearance. As a result, although improvements will be visible from the street level (PVDE), by notching the structure into the slope, the grading will minimize the visual impact of the structures from the neighboring properties. Additionally, the RPVDC states that on sloping lots, structures may have building envelope of up to 16' on the upper side and 30' on the lower side, by right. As stated above, this view finding does not apply when grading is utilized to lower the finished grade under the building footprint, as proposed in the applicant's grading design. D. The proposed grading maintains a majority of the natural contours on the subject property. Specifically, the project proposes to cut and fill along the front of Lot No. 1 to accommodate a shared driveway and to grade down the existing building pad, so as to provide a lower building pad for Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 for the construction of the two new requested residences. On Lot No. 2, the project proposal includes additional cut in order to notch the proposed residence into the existing slope, as well as some fill to support rear yard improvements including a pool, patio and hardscape. The proposed grading is generally limited to developed portions of the lot. The finished contours will blend with the existing contours on the subject property. E. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features because although the slope will be altered by cutting out sections of the slope where the structures and ancillary improvements will be situated, the rest of the site will be preserved through the remaining portions being sculpted to reasonably match the existing contours. Also, there are no significant and protected natural topographic features that would be disturbed by the proposed grading especially since the existing lot is improved as a pad lot. Moreover, as previously stated, the proposed grading generally follows the existing slope of the property and results in finished slopes that appear reasonably natural. Additionally, although some land -sculpturing is proposed to occur, it is designed so as to blend the manufactured slopes into the natural topography. Furthermore, prior to the certificate of occupancy, landscape plans for both properties will be reviewed and the plants installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, which will aid in stabilizing the graded slope and will also contribute towards blending the manufactured slope into the natural topography. Thus, the Planning Commission believes that the amount of P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 7 of 18 E-8 grading beyond that required to accommodate the proposed residence has been minimized. F. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The proposed structures are compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. Specifically, the project proposes to cut and fill a portion of the existing slope at the rear of Lot No. 2 in order to accommodate the proposed residence. By doing so, the residence on Lot No. 2 will be setback or recessed into the existing slope, which is consistent with design features of adjacent properties. In addition, the project also proposes to utilize fill on Lot No. 1 to accommodate a new shared driveway to provide access to the properties, which is consistent with features of homes in the area. The proposed structure sizes will not be out of scale because the proposed structures on Lot Nos. 1 and 2 are within the range of structure sizes for the neighborhood. As for the number of stories, the proposed project is not introducing new feature to the neighborhood, as other 2 story residences in the area exist. Furthermore, building siting and the use of various design features and articulations are used to minimize the apparent bulk/mass of the two new structures. Lastly, the proposed fagade treatments, architectural style, structure height, roof design, setbacks, building materials and bulk/mass of the new residence is similar to and thus compatible with the existing neighborhood character. G. 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. However, the proposed grading does not involve a new residential tract and therefore this criterion does not apply. H The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, maximum finished slopes, and retaining wall heights in the front, side and adjacent to driveways. However, the grading does not conform to maximum depth of cut and fill. Specifically, the project proposes a fill of 6.25' on Lot No. 1 in order to accommodate a proposed shared driveway. The proposal to exceed the maximum depth of fill is reasonable and necessary as the proposed driveway will provide vehicular accessibility to the site, including Fire Department access. Section 5: Applicant's Site Plan Review is approved for the proposed ancillary improvements to Lot Nos. 1 and 2 including balconies, driveways and hardscape areas, outdoor kitchen areas, and construction of a pool at the rear of the proposed residence on Lot No. 2. The proposed ancillary improvements comply with all applicable code requirements, including, but not limited to minimum required setbacks, parking, and maximum allowed lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning district. Additionally, the proposed balconies will not result in an infringement of privacy to neighboring properties. Section 6: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought, is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. 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 Wednesday, December 13, P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 8 �1 2017. A $2,275.00 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 December 13, 2017. Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review the subdivision of an existing lot at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East into two separate lots and to allow the development of one single-family dwelling unit on each lot. Lot No. 1 will be 20,649 square feet in area and improved with a 5,927square foot two-story residence with 1,528 cubic yards of grading. Lot No. 2 will be 23,029 square feet in area and improved with a 5,311 square foot two- story residence with 1,766 cubic yards of related grading, subject to the Conditions of Approval as shown in attached Exhibit "A." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of November, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Leon, Nelson, Tomblin, and Vice -Chairman James NOES: Commissioner Bradley ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Emenhiser Ara i ranian, P Director of Community Development Secretary to the Planning Commission I • F William James, Vice Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 9 of 18 E-10 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review Case Nos. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East General Conditions: Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2 The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 3 Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, 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 of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public notification. 6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 10 of 18 E-11 revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code and administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. 8. If the Applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 11, This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non- conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non- conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped APPROVED plans. 12. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 14. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7:00 AM Monday through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 11 of 8 E-1 2 15. If construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30 calendar days, the Applicant shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. Unless required to protect against a safety hazard, temporary construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than 15 days prior to commencement of construction. 16. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the Applicant shall employ effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/ or watering. 17. This approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Grading Permit expires 24 months from the date of approval of the parcel map by the Planning Commission, unless extended per Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 16.12.040 of the Development Code. Any request for extension shall be submitted to the Planning Commission in writing and with the appropriate fee prior to the expiration of the map. 18. The applicant shall be required to pay for the cost of services to be provided on behalf of the City by any outside consultants that have been retained by the City to render services specifically in connection with this project, in the form of a trust deposit account, prior to commencement of such services (e.g. City Engineer, City Attorney, geotechnical consultants, biologist, etc.). The applicant shall adequately fund said trust deposit accounts prior to the commencement of services, in amounts reasonably requested by the City. In addition, the trust deposits shall be replenished within two weeks of receipt of notice from the City that additional funds are needed. 19. All costs associated with plan check reviews and site inspections for the Department of Public Works shall be incurred by the applicant through the establishment of a trust deposit with the Director of Public Works at the time of plan check submittal or site inspection request. 20. The silhouette frames shall be removed within seven (7) days of a Planning Commission approval. 21. 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. 22. During the construction of the proposed project, the applicant shall ensure that all onsite vehicles, equipment and materials are temporarily screened by fencing pursuant to the City's requirements as described in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. 23. The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise insulating features during construction to reduce source noise levels. 24. All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 1ffiq� noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated during construction. Project Specific Conditions Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658 25. The approval of this Vesting Tentative Parcel Map allows the existing 43,677 square foot lot to be subdivided into two separate lots for the development of two single-family two- story residences. The two approved lots shall comply with the minimum lot dimensions required by the Development Code for the RS -2 Zoning District. Lot No. 1 shall contain a lot area of 20,649 square feet and measure 181' in width and 120' in depth (as measured pursuant to Code Section 17.48.020); while Lot No. 2 shall contain a lot area of 23,029 square feet and measure 137' in width and 168' in depth (as measured pursuant to Code Section 17.48.020). 26. Easements shall not be granted within easements dedicated or offered for dedication to the City until after the final map is filed and recorded with the County Recorder. No easements shall be accepted after recording of the final map that in any way conflict with a prior easement dedicated to the City, or any public utility. All existing easements shall remain in full force and effect unless expressly released by the holder of the easement. 27. The proposed parcel map shall adhere to all the applicable dedications and improvements required per Chapter 16.20 of the Development Code. Prior to the Submittal of Final Parcel Map No. 72658 28. According to Section 16.20.130 of the Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act, at the time of making the survey for the final parcel map, the engineer or surveyor shall set sufficient durable monuments to conform to the standards of the Subdivision Map Act. Prior to recording the final map, the exterior boundary of land being subdivided shall be adequately monumented with no less than a two (2) inch iron pipe, at least eighteen (18) inches long, set in dirt and filled with concrete at each boundary corner. The parcel lot corners shall be monumented with no less than one-half inch iron pipe for the interior monuments. Spikes and washers may be set in asphalt pavement and lead and tacks may be set in concrete pavement or improvements in lieu of pipes. All monuments shall be permanently marked or tagged with the registration or license number of the engineer or surveyor under whose supervision the survey was made. 29. A note shall be placed on the final map stating that a geology and/or soils report has been prepared in conjunction with the subdivision. 30. All existing and proposed easements, including the proposed driveway easement and any utility easements over Lot No. 1, shall be clearly illustrated and described on the final parcel map. 31. All proposed easement documents, including the driveway easement, reciprocal turn- around easement required by the fire department, and any utility easements over Lot No. 1, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to approval of the final map. 32. Prior to submitting the final map to the City Engineer for examination, the applicant shall P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 13 of 18 E-14 obtain clearance from all affected departments and divisions, including a clearance from the City Engineer for the following items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, correctness of certificates and signatures. 33. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property prior to approval of the final map. Prior to the Recordation of Final Parcel Map No. 72658 34. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map, the applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. 35. The final map is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. A trust deposit shall be established with the City to cover any costs of the City Engineer's review. 36. Prior to recordation, the applicant shall supply the City with a digital copy of the Final Parcel Map in the format required by the County of Los Angeles, through ordinance 99- 0080. An additional copy for the County of Los Angeles will also be required upon submittal of the Final Parcel Map to the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. After Recordation of the Final Parcel Map No. 72658 37. The applicant shall supply the City with one mylar (if applicable) and five (5) copies of the map within five (5) calendar days after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. 38. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for the lots created and approved herein, the applicant shall obtain addresses for each of the new lots from the City. Residential Development Standards 39. This approval shall allow the demolition of an existing 4,339 square foot single-family two- story residence and site improvements including a pool, retaining wall and hardscape areas in order to accommodate the construction of two new homes and associated grading on each lot, as further described below: Lot No. 1 A. The construction of a new 5,927 square foot (3 -car attached garage and basement included) two-story residence. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a license land surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection. B. Ancillary improvements including two attached covered patios, an outdoor kitchen and driveway. C. 1,528 cubic yards of associated grading, consisting of 1,272 cubic yards of cut and 256 cubic yards of fill (1,016 cubic yards of export). P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 1 tfiqb Lot No. 2 A. The construction of a new 5,311 square foot (3 -car garage and basement included) two-story residence. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection. B. Ancillary improvements including a new pool & spa, attached covered patio, new driveway and an 8' high up-sloping retaining wall. C. 1,766 cubic yards of grading, consisting of 1,504 cubic yards of cut and 262 cubic yards of fill (1,242 cubic yards of export). 40. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved residences on Lot Nos. 1 and 2, as approved herein, shall maintain the following setbacks for newly created lots in the RS -2 zoning district: Front yard setback — 20' minimum Interior side yard setbacks — 10' minimum per side / 20' minimum total of both sides Rear yard setback — 20' minimum BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 41. The height of the residence on Lot No. 1 shall not exceed 22.9' in height, as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 429.1') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'); and an overall height of 26' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 426.00') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'). The height of the residence on Lot No. 2 shall not exceed 16.5' in height, as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev.435.5') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'); and an overall height of 24', as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 428') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection, based on the above-mentioned instructions. 42. A minimum 3 -car garage shall be provided and maintained for each proposed residence, and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth, with a minimum of 7' of vertical clearance over the space. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth. 43. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (33% proposed for Lot No. 1 and 21 % proposed for Lot No. 2) for each lot. 44. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback areas for both Lot 1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 1 tfiqb and Lot 2 shall each not exceed 50% for each lot. Grading Requirements 45_ New slopes shall not exceed 67% adjacent to the driveway and 35% elsewhere on the property. 46. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. 47. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water shall be applied to areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. 48. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. 49. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk material or other debris from being tracked onto the City's public roadways, and if tracked, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up the impacted City's public roadways. 50. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no trucks shall be allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment. 51. Prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit, a Haul Route Permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department. 52. The applicant shall be responsible for repairs to any public street that may be damaged during the grading and/or construction of any future development of the subject parcels. 53. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall obtain and provide proof of approvals from the City of Rolling Hills for the improvements within their jurisdiction, such as for the construction of the proposed driveway, landscaping, grading and drainage improvements. 54. Prior to the certificate of occupancy, landscape plans for both properties shall be reviewed and the plants installed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 55. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Community Development Director's satisfaction that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for the control of dust. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 1 tfiq 56 During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. 57. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems. 58. Prior to issuance of any grading permit and/or building permits for the properties, a grading plan and geotechnical report shall be prepared for review and approval by the Building Official and the City Geologist. 59 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Building Official for approval that shall include BMPs for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, the Erosion Control Plan shall include post -construction BMPs that apply to runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. 60. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits, the proposed sewer system for each new property shall be reviewed and approved by the Building & Safety Division. 61. Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit for new construction, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Drainage Plan by the City's Building & Safety Division and the City's Public Works Director finding that stormwater runoff as a result from the development of the subject site is designed to flow and utilize an on-site drainage system that directs runoff into the existing storm drainage system. Lighting and Glare 62, All exterior illumination for the new residential structures on both Lots 1 and 2 shall comply with the provisions of Section 17.56.030 (Outdoor Lighting for Residential Uses) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code for each lot. 63. Prior to the issuance of building permits, all residential lighting shall be fully shielded, and no outdoor lighting shall be 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 for each lot. 64. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the specifications for the glass type, color, and reflectivity shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Community Development Director for each lot. Utilities 65. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, which shall include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for a land division. Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 17 of 18 E-18 L.A. County Fire Department. 66. Prior to a grading and/or building permit issuance, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. 67 All utilities to and on the subject lots shall be provided underground, including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy 68. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall submit complete Landscape Plans to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Director of Community Development ensuring that the graded slopes are landscaped and retaining walls screened with landscaping. The final approved landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. Said plans may be required to comply with the State of California Water Efficient Landscape requirements. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-43 Page 18 of 18 E-19 CITYOF MEMORANDUM PALOS VERDES TO: CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2017 SUBJECT: VESTING PARCEL MAP NO. 72658, HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NOS. SUB2014-0003, ZON2014-00273, ZON2016-00120); PROJECT ADDRESS — 27581 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST (LANDOWNER — NITAL & NILAY PATEL / APPLICANT — TIM RASCIZ) Project Manager: Octavio Silva, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2017-_; conditionally approving Vesting Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the subdivision of an existing 43,677 square foot lot at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East into two separate lots and to allow the development of one single-family dwelling unit on each lot. Lot No. 1 will be 20,649 square feet in area and improved with a 5,927 square foot two-story residence with 1,528 cubic yards of grading. Lot No. 2 will be 23,029 square feet in area and improved with a 5,311 square foot two- story residence with 1,766 cubic yards of related grading (Case Nos. SUB2014-0003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120). BACKGROUND On August 9, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Applicants' request for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658 to subdivide an existing lot located at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) into two separate lots (Case No. SU132014- 00003), and to construct two new residences on each new lot (Case Nos. ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120). At that time, the Applicants' requested approval of a Variance to reduce the Code -required 90 -foot minimum lot width requirement for each of the proposed lots, a Height Variation for the construction of a two-story residence on each lot, and a Grading Permit to accommodate the new homes. After considering public testimony and the merits of the project including Staff's concerns with the Variance request, the Commission expressed a concern with the ability to affirmatively make the required application findings. The Commission directed the Applicants to redesign the proposed subdivision to comply with Code's RS -2 lot dimension F-1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 2 requirements, thereby eliminating the need for a Variance, and to modify the design of the two new residences with respect to reducing the structures' size and bulk, and addressing privacy concerns (see attached August 9, 2016 PC Meeting Minutes). The Commission continued the public hearing to September 27, 2016. On September 27, 2016, the Commission considered the continued item and accepted Staff's recommendation to receive and file a status report to continue the public hearing on the requested applications to a meeting date uncertain, as the Applicants requested additional time to complete their redesign project. The report noted that once a completed project was submitted to the City, Staff would reschedule the public hearing and issue a new public notice. On February 27, 2017, the Applicants submitted a redesigned project that eliminated the need for a Variance. After reviewing the revised submitted information, Staff deemed the application incomplete on March 22, 2017. The Applicants submitted revisions on multiple occasions, with the final submittal provided on September 27, 2017. Subsequently, Staff deemed the applications complete for processing on October 26, 2017. A silhouette depicting the revised residences was installed on September 21, 2017. On October 26, 2017, a new public notice of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review applications was sent to property owners within 500' of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published on the same day in the Peninsula News. To date, Staff received four written public comments regarding the proposed project (see attachments). PROJECT SITE designation for the site is Residential 1-2 du/ac and respectively. Additionally, the property has an Equestrian allows for the keeping of horses on the property. The project site is a 43,677 square foot rectangular shaped lot located on the east side of Palos Verdes Drive East, and borders the City of Rolling Hills Estates to the north and east. The subject property is a pad lot that is currently developed with a 4,339 square foot, two-story, residence (including an attached garage) and swimming pool. The property is surrounded by detached, single-family residences to the north, south, east, and west, and has driveway access from PVDE in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The General Plan land use designation and zoning RS -2 (Single -Family Residential), Overlay District designation that F-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 3 REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicants' revised request is to subdivide the existing 43,677 square foot lot into two separate residential lots, Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2, measuring 20,649 square feet and 23,028 square feet in area, respectively. In addition to the lot split, the request involves the demolition of the existing single-family residence and site improvements including a pool, retaining wall, and hardscape areas in order to accommodate the construction of two new homes and associated grading on each lot, as further described below: Lot No. 1 (CASE NO. ZON2014-00273) The construction of a new 5,927 square foot (3 -car attached garage and basement included) two-story residence at a height of 22.9', as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 429.1') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'); and an overall height of 26' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 426.00') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'). Ancillary improvements including two attached covered patios, an outdoor kitchen and driveway. 1,528 cubic yards of associated grading, consisting of 1,272 cubic yards of cut and 256 cubic yards of fill (1,016 cubic yards of export). Lot No. 2 (CASE NO. ZON2016-00120) The construction of a new 5,311 square foot (3 -car garage and basement included) two-story residence at a height of 16.5', as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 435.5') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'); and an overall height of 24', as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 428') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'). Ancillary improvements including a new pool & spa, attached covered patio, new driveway and an 8' high up-sloping retaining wall. 1,766 cubic yards of grading, consisting of 1,504 cubic yards of cut and 262 cubic yards of fill (1,242 cubic yards of export). In addition to the proposed grading for each lot, the Applicants are proposing to grade 389 cubic yards of earth within the public right-of-way in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, which provides access from PVDE to the two new residences via a shared access driveway. The grading consists of 19 cubic yards of cut and 370 cubic yards of fill. The Applicants will be required to obtain approvals for the driveway and associated grading from the City of Rolling Hills Estates. In addition to the description above, a summary of the critical project statistics are defined in Table 1 below for reference: F-3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 4 Table 1: Project Statistics: CRITERIA CODE REQUIREMENT EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED LOT NO. 1 PROPOSED LOT NO.2 Lot Size 20,000 s.f. 43,677 s.f. 20,649 s.f. 23,029 s.f. Structure Size (with basement) N/A 4,339 s.f. 5,927 s.f. 5,311 s.f. Setbacks Front: 20' 82' 29' 21.8' Side (north) 10' 47' 65' 26' Side south 10' 21' 32' 58' Rear 20' 75' 36.4' 64' Lot Coverage % 40% 21% 33% 21 Enclosed Parking 2 spaces (<5'000ft2 structure) 3 spaces 3 spaces 3 spaces Structure Height — Pad Lot Highest elevation of existing building pad covered by structure to highest ridge of building. 16' 21' 22.9' 16.5' Lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab. 20' 25' 26' 24' CODE CONSIDERATIONS & ANALYSIS The following sections of this report provide Staff's analysis for the requested Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Height Variation, Grading Permits, and Site Plan Review. Staff's analysis and assessment of the revised project and requested applications are limited to the applicability of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Development Code and potential impacts to properties located within the City's boundaries. As Staff originally received a number of comment letters from residents who are located outside of the City's jurisdiction, within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, Staff's responses to the neighboring concerns are addressed under the Additional Information and Public Comments sections of this report. F-4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 5 A. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP Pursuant to Section 16.04.040(E) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, no map shall be approved by the Planning Commission unless it complies with the requirements set forth in the State's Subdivision Map Act, Title 16 (Subdivisions), and other applicable sections of the City's Municipal Code. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, the Planning Commission must consider the following required findings (shown in bold) prior to rendering a decision, along with Staff's analysis (shown in normal type): 1. That the proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan. The subject lot is located within the General Plan Land Use designation of "Less than one dwelling unit per acre" (:51 d.u./acre), and is located within the City's RS -2 (single-family residential) Zoning District. All new residential lots within the :51 d.u./acre density range, and located within the RS -2 Zoning District, must maintain a minimum lot size of 20'000ft2. As proposed, Lot Nos. 1 and 2 will be 20,649 square feet and 23,029 in size, respectively, which is consistent with the <-1 d.u./acre General Plan land use designation, and RS -2 Zoning District. According to the City's General Plan, "this density is compatible with the Peninsula environment and with adjacent existing densities and/or a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities" (page 195 - 1 to 2 Dwelling Units per Acre, RPV General Plan). Therefore, this finding can be made. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. Table 2 on the next page identifies the minimum Subdivision (Title 16) and Development Code (Title 17) requirements to create new lots within the RS -2 (single-family residential) Zoning District, followed by Staff's analysis. Table 2: Subdivision Statistics RS -2 ZONING DISTRICT - '1 Minimum Minimum - Minimum Contiguous Minimum Minimum Required: Lot Size Lot Area Lot Depth. Lot Width: (20,000ft2) 6,600ftz 120' 90' Proposed Lot 1: 20,649 s.f. 9,380 s.f. 120' 181' Proposed Lot 2: 23,029 s.f. 12,213 s.f. 137' 168' j Pursuant to Section 16.04.040(D) of the City's Subdivision Code (Title 16), each lot created by a map shall include a minimum contiguous lot area of 3,000 square feet or 33% of the minimum lot area required by the appropriate residential base zoning district standards, whichever is greater. The contiguous lot area shall not include the required setback areas and slopes equal to or greater than 35%. Since the subject property is located within a RS -2 zoning district and F-5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 6 33% of the minimum lot area (20,000 square feet) is 6,600 square feet, which is greater than 3,000 square feet, Staff has determined that the Applicants must possess a minimum contiguous lot area of 6,600 square feet on each lot to allow the proposed subdivision. As proposed, the contiguous lot area for Lot 1 is 9,380 square feet and 12,213 square feet for Lot 2, both of which excludes the required setbacks and all slopes greater than 35%. As such, the proposed subdivision complies with the minimum contiguous lot area required for subdivision of the lot into two separate lots. In addition to meeting the minimum contiguous lot area, the City's Development Code (Title 17.48.020) requires that new lots comply with the lot dimensions listed under the applicable Zoning District. According to the table above, the revised subdivision design complies with the required minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width in the RS -2 zoning district eliminating the previously requested variance. Therefore, this finding can be made. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the development. As noted in Finding No. 2 above, the revised subdivision design complies with the minimum lot size, lot depth and lot widths in the RS -2 Zoning District and is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the development. While the configuration of the proposed lots is not the traditional rectangular design of an interior lot, the revised design of the proposed lots are consistent with Code Section 17.48.020 with respect to lot area and lot dimensions. In addition, each of the proposed lots will have a contiguous lot area that exceeds 6,600 square feet, which is the minimum required for a RS -2 zoning district. Pursuant to Section 16.04.040.D of the Code, the contiguous lot area is the gross lot area less slopes steeper than thirty-five (35) percent and the required setback areas. The contiguous lot area is considered that portion of the property that will be used as the building pad and/or buildable area for any future single- family residences. Based on the Applicants' plans, the size of the contiguous lot area on each of the lots will be large enough to accommodate a single-family residence that complies with the standards set forth in the Development Code for a RS -2 zoning district, as it pertains to structure size, lot coverage and setbacks. Lastly, access to the properties will be provided by a proposed shared driveway, with a portion of it located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The Applicants have presented plans to the City of Roiling Hills Estates for approval of the requested driveway and associated grading. A Condition of Approval has been added that requires the Applicants to demonstrate approval of the proposed improvements within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, prior to issuance of any Grading and Building Permit. Therefore, this finding can be made. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The proposed subdivision and associated improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or harm wild life or their habitat. Specifically, the subdivision will create two lots, which will allow for the construction of two new residential structures in an area that has been previously developed for residential purposes In addition, according to the General Plan's Biotic Species Map, the subject property is not located within an area designated as a blue line stream or an area that contains major wildlife. Further, according to the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), no Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species F-6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 7 have been identified on the subject property and/or any nearby properties. Therefore, this finding can be made. 5. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. The revised project consists of the demolition of an existing 4,339 square foot residence (including garage and barn) and a subdivision of the existing residential lot into two lots, in conjunction with the construction of two new residential structures on each of the respective lots. The proposed residential structures will have to be constructed in conformance with the City's Development Code standards and require approval by the Building & Safety Division to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. Additionally, the City's Geotechnical Consultant has reviewed and provided an "in -concept" approval of the geotechnical reports that were prepared for the proposed parcel map. Furthermore, prior to grading and building permits being issued by the Building & Safety Division, a more detailed site and project -specific geotechnical report will need to be approved by the City's Geotechnical Consultant. As for drainage, Section 16.20.050 of the Development Code requires that the Applicants mitigate any potential impacts caused by drainage flow from the subject property to any adjacent properties. Staff will incorporate conditions that require the Applicants to address all drainage flow concerns prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed development, should the subdivision be approved. With regards to utilities, the existing parcel is directly adjacent to a public street (PVDE) that will permit connection to existing water lines that are serviced by the California Water Service Company and which currently serve the existing surrounding residential development. With regards to wastewater, each of the new lots will be required to connect to existing sewer lines, the location and design of which will be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Estates because these utilities are located in their jurisdiction. Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that this finding can be made since the proposed subdivision will result in lots that can sustain residential development that will not cause any serious public health problems. Therefore, this finding can be made. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not be in conflict with the easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. There are no existing or proposed public easements over the subject lot and therefore, this finding can be made. Based on the above, the required findings for the proposed lot split can be affirmatively made and therefore recommends conditional approval of the requested Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658. B. HEIGHT VARIATION Since the proposed two-story structures on Lot Nos. 1 and 2 exceed the 16'/20' "by right" building envelope for a pad lot, a Height Variation is required for the construction of the residences. Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.02.040 (C)(1)(a)(iii) & (v) of the RPVMC, the Height Variation Permit request requires Planning Commission review as the area of the structure which exceeds 16 feet in height (the second story footprint) exceeds 75% of the first F-7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 8 story footprint area (residence and attached garage) and the portion of the structure which exceeds 16 feet in height is being developed as part of a new single-family residence. Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e) of the Development Code sets forth the findings required in order for the Planning Commission to approve a Height Variation. A discussion of these findings (in bold type): 1. The applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process established by the city. The Development Code requires that Applicants take all necessary steps to consult with the property owners within 500 feet of the project site. The City has established the following guidelines to conform with this requirement to ensure that property owners have been consulted with, "[applicant must obtain] 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 obtained." With the exception of the project site, there are 8 properties within 100 feet of the site and 49 within 500 feet of the site. The Applicants obtained 6 signatures from properties within 100 feet (75%) and 14 signatures from properties within 500 feet (28.5%), including those within 100 feet of the subject site (4 of the neighboring property owner signatures obtained reside in Rolling Hills Estates). Therefore, the Applicants have met the requirement to notify 70% of the landowners within 100 feet and 25% of the total number of landowners within 500 feet (including those within 100 feet) and has complied with the early notification consultation process. The Applicants did not notify a local homeowners association, as there is none for this area of the City. Thus, this finding can be made. 2. The proposed new structure that is above 16 feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above 16 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. The City's General Plan, adopted June 26, 1975, identifies viewing points (turnouts along vehicular corridors for the purposes of viewing) and viewing sites (public site areas, which due to their physical locations on the Peninsula, provide a significant viewing vantage) within the City. Due to the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structures are not visible from a public viewing area or viewing site, as defined by the General Plan. Additionally, the property is not located within the City's Coastal Specific Plan, and there are no public trails that traverse the property. As such, the proposed structures on Lot Nos. 1 and 2 will not impair a view, which has been defined in the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, or a public trail. Therefore, this finding can be made. 3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. A ridge is defined as, "an elongated crest or a linear series of crests of hills, bluffs, or highlands" (Section 17.96.1610 of the Municipal Code). A promontory is defined as, "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" (Section 17.96.1480 of the Development Code). The proposed PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 9 residences are located on building pads and not located on a promontory. Therefore, this finding can be made. 4. The area of a proposed new structure that is above 16 feet in height or an addition to an existing structure that is above 16 feet in height, as defined in Section 17.02.040(B) of the Development Code, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. The view of the harbor and city lights that the immediate adjacent neighbors within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes currently enjoy is in an easterly direction. As such, Staff was primarily concerned with the view of the adjacent neighbors located to the west and south of the property who have a view over the property. However, given that the building pads of the properties to the west of the subject property are elevated approximately 55-0" to 60'-0" higher than the subject property, and the properties to the south of the subject property are elevated approximately 25-0" to 30'-0" higher than the subject property, the westerly and southerly neighbors will continue to have a view over the proposed residences without any adverse impact caused by the proposed project. As part of the Applicants' initial submittal, City Staff received public comments regarding view concerns, as observed from adjacent properties along Harbor Sight Drive in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has a View Ordinance, which protects views of properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, but does not apply to residences outside of the City. Thus, Staff believes that this finding can be made. 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 16 feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above 16 feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view. As noted in the previous Finding No. 4, there is no view impairment caused by the proposed project from the viewing area of another parcel in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. As such, Staff believes that 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 sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. As indicated above, there will be no view impairment for portions of the structure which exceed the 16'-0" in height as seen from the viewing area of another parcel located within the City's jurisdiction. However, according to the City's Height Variation Guidelines, to make this assessment, Staff must evaluate the impacts of a similar project as the proposed project on 3 or 4 lots "adjacent" to the subject property. Staff considered similar construction at 27591 PVDE, 27601 PVDE and 27649 PVDE and is of the opinion that similar structures on these properties would not present a significant cumulative view impairment to properties in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes because of the sloping topography of the neighborhood. These properties are F-9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 10 located on building pads that are approximately 25-0" to 40'-0" lower in elevation than the properties located to the west, which would have viewing areas above the roofline heights of the two proposed residences. Furthermore, the property immediately adjacent to the subject property (27591 PVDE) is already developed with a two-story residence. Therefore, this finding can be made. 7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements. The two revised residences comply with the City's Development Code standards with regard to setbacks, lot coverage and parking (see Project Statistics Table above). Therefore, as the two proposed residences comply with the standards set forth in the City's Development Code, this finding can be made. 8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040.A.6. of the Development Code, "Neighborhood Character" is defined to consider the existing physical characteristics of an area. The factors to be analyzed per the code language are boldface, and Staff's analysis is in normal type. (a) Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures. Compatibility with neighborhood character is based on a comparison to the other structures in the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised of the 20 closest properties located within the same zoning district and within the City's jurisdiction. The table below illustrates the 20 properties and structures that comprise the immediate neighborhood and serve as the basis for neighborhood compatibility. The homes analyzed, along with the lot size, structure size, and number of stories, are listed below in the Neighborhood Compatibility Table. Table 2: Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis F-10 S�.ca�'x!``z�`*'sN Z A"5 � ��"�r "tis SC?fi'<"H ➢5� d "e,Y,si � 'F`FCG -�.' ?2 A�:"t:""�v'^� Y`.b`-,2�:1 � .7 \. ",.;, Nv :,;34r: ar'sg`��.� � � . �<.�., a si ;7 •'YY'. "'ie',nv� Y,r'Y.�,t..e � �,.r^u, 27591 PVDE 20,612 6,222 2 27601 PVDE 23,566 2,206 1 27649 PVDE 45,929 2,583 1 27661 PVDE 17,749 2,920 1 27701 PVDE 19,340 3,141 1 27783 PVDE 19,005 3,050 1 27789 PVDE 20,208 3,311 1 27801 PVDE 19,252 3,165 1 27825 PVDE 20,200 3,360 2 27841 PVDE 22,386 '"3,068 1 27848 PVDE 48,546 *3,295 1 27865 PVDE 44,021 3,818 1 27879 PVDE 43,350 2,770 1 27890 PVDE 20,799 2,900 1 F-10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 11 * The square footage for this residential property was documented from Assessor's information as there was no information available in the building permit file in the Community Development Department. The proposed project complies with the maximum lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning district (40%), as Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 propose a lot coverage of 33% and 21 %, respectively. An aerial survey of the surrounding neighborhood conducted by Staff indicated that many of the residential properties in the immediate neighborhood are at or near the same lot coverage as what is being proposed on Lot Nos. 1 and 2. As the proposed residences are still below the maximum lot coverage, and each design provides lot coverages that are comparable to other properties within the immediate neighborhood, Staff is able to support the project in terms of lot coverage. As noted in the table above, the immediate neighborhood is comprised of both one-story and two-story homes that range in size from 1,910 square feet to 9,025 square feet in area. The average structure size for the 20 closest homes is 3,554 square feet. During the Planning Commission's initial consideration of the proposed project, the Commission expressed concerns with the overall structure size of the two proposed residences. As part of the Applicants' initial design, the residence on Lot No. 1 was 7,471 square feet and the residence on Lot No. 2 was 7,313 square feet. The Applicants' revised design has addressed the Commission's concerns by reducing the overall structure sizes of the two new residences. Specifically, the revised design proposes a 5,927 square foot (1,437 square foot basement included) two-story residence on Lot No. 1, and a 5,311 square foot (818 basement included) two-story residence on Lot No. 2. Given that the basement areas are below grade, the structure size of the residences on Lot Nos. 1 and Lot 2 that will be visible will be 4,490 square feet and 4,493 square feet, respectively. Although the size of the proposed residences will be larger than the average in the immediate neighborhood, the two proposed residences are not the largest homes in the neighborhood, the largest being 9,025 square feet. Given this information, Staff is of the opinion that this finding can be made. F-11 27892 PVDE 36,891� *4,705 1 27895 PUDE 43,359 *1,929 1 27907 PVDE 45,709 1,910 1 27921 PVDE 44,229 4,360 1 27933 PVDE 26,423 3,160 1 27992 PVDE 47,813 9,025 1 Average 31,483 3,554 1 27581 PVDE Existing 43,677 4,339 2 5,927 (1,437 s.f. Proposed 20,649 basement 2 Lot 1 included Proposed 5,311 Lot 2 23,029 (818 s.f. basement 2 included) * The square footage for this residential property was documented from Assessor's information as there was no information available in the building permit file in the Community Development Department. The proposed project complies with the maximum lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning district (40%), as Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 propose a lot coverage of 33% and 21 %, respectively. An aerial survey of the surrounding neighborhood conducted by Staff indicated that many of the residential properties in the immediate neighborhood are at or near the same lot coverage as what is being proposed on Lot Nos. 1 and 2. As the proposed residences are still below the maximum lot coverage, and each design provides lot coverages that are comparable to other properties within the immediate neighborhood, Staff is able to support the project in terms of lot coverage. As noted in the table above, the immediate neighborhood is comprised of both one-story and two-story homes that range in size from 1,910 square feet to 9,025 square feet in area. The average structure size for the 20 closest homes is 3,554 square feet. During the Planning Commission's initial consideration of the proposed project, the Commission expressed concerns with the overall structure size of the two proposed residences. As part of the Applicants' initial design, the residence on Lot No. 1 was 7,471 square feet and the residence on Lot No. 2 was 7,313 square feet. The Applicants' revised design has addressed the Commission's concerns by reducing the overall structure sizes of the two new residences. Specifically, the revised design proposes a 5,927 square foot (1,437 square foot basement included) two-story residence on Lot No. 1, and a 5,311 square foot (818 basement included) two-story residence on Lot No. 2. Given that the basement areas are below grade, the structure size of the residences on Lot Nos. 1 and Lot 2 that will be visible will be 4,490 square feet and 4,493 square feet, respectively. Although the size of the proposed residences will be larger than the average in the immediate neighborhood, the two proposed residences are not the largest homes in the neighborhood, the largest being 9,025 square feet. Given this information, Staff is of the opinion that this finding can be made. F-11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 12 (b) Architectural styles, including facade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials. Architectural Styles, Facade Treatments, Roof Design & Building Materials The two revised residences will have a low pitch hip roof with concrete the roofing. The exterior walls of the two residences will be a smooth stucco finish with decorative stone veneer over the front entries, chimneys and rear balcony areas. The proposed design of the residential structures use elements found in various architectural styles like Spanish Colonial, Monterey and Mediterranean/ Italian Renaissance. The residences within the immediate neighborhood vary in architectural style, borrowing elements commonly found in Spanish Colonial, Monterey, Mediterranean/ Italian Renaissance and California Ranch. The roof designs include gable, hip, shed, and flat that use materials such as composition shingle and ceramic tile. The roof pitches and overhangs also vary in size. The exterior finishes of the neighboring properties are either stucco or wood siding and include natural rock and brick accents. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed architectural style, roof design and building materials of the two proposed residences are compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Bulk and Mass. Structure Heiaht. Ogen Soace & Number of Stories. The bulk and mass of a structure is assessed in terms of floor area, height, relationship to lot size, and architectural style. During the Planning Commission's initial consideration of the proposed project in August of 2016, concerns were expressed with the bulk and mass of the proposed residences. Specifically, based on the siting of the two residences and proximity of the two structures to one another, the Commission described the design as having a "compound appearance" in that the two structures appear to be one single structure. Staff is of the opinion that the new lot configuration and revised residence design have reduced the bulk and size concern and the "compound appearance" of the project, which has resulted in a design that is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Specifically, the redesigned project provides increased setbacks between the two residences. As proposed, the distance between the rear of the residence on Lot No. 1 and the front of the residence on Lot No. 2 is approximately 58.2'. In addition, while the building pad level of the subject property is approximately 20' higher than the elevation of PVDE and may appear to present issues of bulk and mass of the proposed structure, Staff is of the opinion that the redesigned residences provide architectural features and projections that reduce the overall bulk and mass. As part of the resubmittal, the proposed residence on Lot No. 2 is sited towards the rear of the lot, and is proposed to be notched into the existing slope, so as to further reduce the bulk and mass of the overall project. With regards to open space between structures, an aerial review of the closest 20 homes, indicates that the open space between structures varies from property to property, as a result of asymmetrical lot conditions in the area and the construction of customized homes, and the proposed project does not create an anomaly in terms of open space between structures. With regards to structure height and the number of stories, the subject property is currently improved with an existing two-story residence, which will be demolished as part of the project. The proposed residence on Lot No. 1 will be 26' in height, as measured from the F-12 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 13 lowest finished grade adjacent to structure to the highest roof ridgeline, and 22.9' in height, as measured from the highest existing grade adjacent to structure to the highest roof ridgeline. The residence on Lot No. 2 will be 24' in height, as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to structure to the highest roof ridgeline, and 14' in height, as measured from the highest existing grade adjacent to structure. As part of the Applicants' resubmittal, the overall height of the proposed residence on Lot No. 2 has been reduced. Specifically, the height of the residence been reduced by 2' as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to structure to the highest roof ridgeline and by 5.5' as measured from the highest existing grade adjacent to structure. Furthermore, as described in Table 2 (above), homes in the immediate area are primarily single story, with the exception of two existing residences, which are two stories in height. As such, the two proposed two-story residences will not introduce a new element to the neighborhood in terms of number of stories. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed structure size, style, treatments, roof design, bulk and mass, open space between structures, number of stories and materials of the two proposed residences will be consistent with the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, for the reasons noted above, this finding can be made. (c) Front, side, and rear yard setbacks According to the Development Code, structures in the RS -2 zoning district shall maintain the following minimum setbacks for City created lots: 20'-0" front yard setback, 20'-0" rear yard and 10'-0" side yard setbacks (total 20'-0" both sides). As stated in Finding No. 7 (above), both residential structures on Lot Nos. 1 and 2 of the project site comply with the minimum setback requirements. Thus, no deviation from the minimum setback requirements is proposed as part of the new construction, and the existing and proposed setbacks are consistent with other setbacks in the immediate neighborhood. Based on the analysis above, it is Staff's opinion that the proposed, scale, architectural style and materials, front, side and rear yard setbacks are consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, this Neighborhood Compatibility finding can be made. 9. The proposed new structure that is above 16 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. The Municipal Code defines privacy as, "reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation." The Height Variation Guidelines state, "given the variety and number of options which are available to preserve indoor privacy, greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor privacy than to protecting indoor privacy." During the Planning Commission's last consideration of the proposed project, Commissioners expressed concerns regarding the proposed project and potential privacy to neighboring properties. As a result, the Applicants redesigned the two new homes, so as to address the Commissioners' concerns. Specifically, the proposed residence on Lot No. 1 will be two stories in height and will be improved with an 84 square foot balcony and a 119 square foot balcony along the easterly, or street side, elevation. The residence on Lot No. 2 will also be two stories in height and be improved with a 68 square foot balcony and a 48 square foot F-13 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 14 balcony along the easterly or street site elevation. By positioning the balconies along the easterly elevations or street facing sides of the proposed residences, the Applicants reduce the likelihood of infringing on the privacy of occupants of abutting residences, as the balconies face a major arterial street (PVDE) rather than developed properties. In addition to the above, the north elevations of the proposed residences incorporate windows along the second stories. While these windows face properties to the north of the project site, along Harbor Sight Road within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the proposed residences provide a large enough side yard setback minimizing potential privacy issues. Specifically, the residences on Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 provide a 65' and a 26' side yard setback to the northerly side property line. Based on the above, Staff has determined that the two proposed residences have been redesigned so as to address the Planning Commission's initial privacy concerns. In addition, staff is of the opinion that the two new residences will not create an unreasonable infringement to the privacy for the abutting residences located within the City. Therefore, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. C. MAJOR GRADING PERMIT Pursuant to Section 17.76.040 of the Development Code, a Major Grading Permit is required for projects that result in an excavation, fill, or combination thereof, in excess of 50 cubic yards. Additionally, per Section 17.76.040(D)(4) of the Development Code, if over 1,000 cubic yards of total earth movement (grading) is proposed, the application shall be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration under the criteria set forth in the aforementioned section. Since a total of 3,683 cubic feet of project related earth movement (389 cubic yards will occur in the City of Rolling Hills Estates under a separate entitlement process) is proposed consisting of 1,528 cubic yards of grading for Lot No. 1 and 1,766 cubic yards of grading for Lot No. 2, a Major Grading Permit with Planning Commission review is required. In addition, the Applicants are requesting the construction of an 8' high up-slope retaining wall at the rear of the residence on Lot No. 2. The wall is being designed in a "U" configuration from north to south and along the up-slope portion of Lot No. 2. Section 17.76.040(E) of the Development Code sets forth the criteria (in bold type) required in order for the Planning Commission to approve a Major Grading application: 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot; Per Section 17.96.2180 of the Development Code, "use" is defined as "the purpose for which land or buildings are or may be arranged, designed, intended, occupied or maintained." The proposed project is in a RS -2 Zoning District, in which the primary use of the lot is residential. The proposed grading is to accommodate the construction of two new residential structures with basement areas, driveway access to the two properties and related site improvements including a pool, patio, and hardscape areas. Therefore, the proposed project does not exceed what is necessary for the permitted use of the lot and this standard can be met. 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an F-14 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 15 addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8) of this title, is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing) grade; The project grading includes excavation under the building footprints of the two proposed residences. The subject property survey indicates existing grade elevations in the area of the existing building pad range between approximately 427.00' at the east end of the existing building pad and 431.00' at the west end of the existing building pad. The proposed finished grade of the building pads will be approximately 426.00' at the east end of the proposed pads, and 427.00' at the west end of the pads. As such, the Applicants are proposing to lower the grades and building pads of the two proposed residential properties by approximately 1 to 3 feet. The view of the harbor and city lights that the adjacent neighbors currently enjoy is in an easterly direction. As noted in the Height Variation discussion, given that the building pads of proposed residences will be lowered and that the building pads of properties to the west of the subject property are elevated approximately 55'-0" to 60'-0" higher than the subject property and the properties to the south of the subject property are elevated approximately 25'-0" to 30'-0" higher than the subject property; the westerly and southerly neighbors will continue to have a view over the subject property without any adverse impact caused by the proposed project. For these reasons, this standard can be met. 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural; The proposed grading maintains a majority of the natural contours on the property. The Applicants are proposing cut and fill along the front of Lot No. 1 to accommodate a shared driveway. In addition, the Applicants are proposing to grade down the existing building pad, so as to provide a lower building pad for Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 for the construction of the two new requested residences. On Lot No. 2, the Applicants are proposing additional cut in order to notch the proposed residence into the existing slope, as well as some fill to support rear yard improvements including a pool, patio and hardscape. The proposed grading is generally limited to developed portions of the lot. The finished contours will blend with the existing contours on the property. Therefore this criterion can be met. 4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography; The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features because although the slope will be altered by cutting out sections of the slope where the structures and ancillary improvements will be situated, the rest of the site will be preserved through the remaining portions being sculpted to reasonably match the existing contours. Also, there are no significant and protected natural topographic features that would be disturbed by the proposed grading especially since the existing lot is improved as a pad lot. Moreover, as previously stated, the proposed grading generally follows the existing slope of the property and results in finished slopes that appear reasonably natural. Additionally, although some land -sculpturing is proposed to occur, it is designed so as to blend the manufactured slopes into the natural topography. Furthermore, prior to the certificate of occupancy, landscape plans for both F-15 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 16 properties will be reviewed and the plants installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, which will aid in stabilizing the graded slope and will also contribute towards blending the manufactured slope into the natural topography. Therefore, this criterion can be met. 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed grading to accommodate the proposed residences is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Specifically, the project proposes to cut and fill a portion of the existing slope at the rear of Lot No. 2 in order to accommodate the proposed residence. By doing so, the residence on Lot No. 2 will be set back or recessed into the existing slope, which is consistent with the design of the residence at 27591 Palos Verdes Drive East. In addition, the project also proposes to utilize fill on Lot No. 1 to accommodate a new shared driveway to provide access to the properties, which is consistent with feature of homes in the area. The proposed structure sizes will not be out of scale because the proposed structures on Lot Nos. 1 and 2 are within the range of structure sizes for the neighborhood. As for the number of stories, the proposed project is not introducing new feature to the neighborhood, as other 2 story residences in the area exist. Furthermore, building siting and the use of various design features and articulations are used to minimize the apparent bulk/mass of the two new structures. Lastly, the proposed facade treatments, architectural style, structure height, roof design, setbacks, building materials and bulk/mass of the new residence is similar to and thus compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Therefore, this criterion can 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 grading does not involve a new residential tract and therefore this criterion does not apply. 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside; The proposed project does not involve modifications to streets or other public infrastructure. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project. 8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation; The proposed grading area does not contain natural landscape or wildlife habitat and therefore, this criterion can be met. 9. The grading conforms to the following standards: F-16 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 17 Development Grading Criteria Does the Proposed Project Standard meet the standard a) Grading on Permitted on lots created prior to slopes over 35% the City's incorporation, not zoned steepness OH, based upon a finding that the Not applicable. grading will not threaten public health, safety and welfare b) Maximum 35% steepness, unless next to a finished slopes driveway where 67% steepness is Yes permitted c) Maximum depth Except for the excavation of a No, Applicants are of cut or fill basement or cellar, a fill or cut not requesting a fill of 6.25' to exceeding 5' depth, unless based accommodate the proposed upon a finding that unusual shared driveway on Lot No. topography, soil conditions, 1. However, Staff is of the previous grading or other opinion that such grading is circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary to reasonable and necessary accommodate a driveway for vehicular accessibility to the site, including Fire Department access. d) Restricted No grading on slopes over 50% Yes grading areas steepness e) Retaining walls One 8' -tall upslope wall (unless in Yes front yard or street side setback One 3'/2' -tall downslope wall Yes One 3'/2' -tall up- or downslope wall Yes in each side yard One 5 -tall up- or downslope wall Yes adjacent to driveway Retaining walls within building Yes footprint may exceed 8' f) Driveways 20% maximum slope permitted, with a single 10' -long section up to Yes 22% 67% slopes permitted adjacent to Yes driveways Based on the analysis above, it is Staff's opinion that approval of the Major Grading Permit is warranted. D. SITE PLAN REVIEW Pursuant to Section 17.70.010 of the Development Code, the Site Plan Review procedure enables the Planning Commission to check development proposals for conformity with the provisions of the Development Code and for the manner in which they are applied, when no other application is required. In addition to the construction of the proposed residences, the applicants are proposing yard improvements including a pool with hardscape improvements at F-17 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 18 the rear of Lot No. 2, the construction of outdoor kitchen areas under covered patios that are attached to the proposed residences and the installation of mechanical equipment. The proposed ancillary improvements comply with all applicable Code requirements, including, but not limited to, minimum required setbacks, parking, and maximum allowed lot coverage as evidenced in Table 1 (Project Statistics) above. Section 17.02.030(D)(4)(a) of the Development Code requires Staff to assess if the proposed balconies along the east elevation of the two proposed residences create an unreasonable infringement of privacy. As previously noted under Height Variation Finding No. 9, the proposed residence and balconies will not result in an infringement of privacy to neighboring properties. Based on the analysis above, it is Staff's opinion that approval of the applicant's Site Plan Review is warranted. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT As part of the initial subdivision design, the Applicants requested a Variance to deviate from the RS -2 zone's established lot depth requirements. Specifically, the Variance request was to reduce the 90' lot width requirement for both Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 to 88.5' and 85.5', respectively. As a result of the Variance request, the project could not be exempted from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Staff was required to conduct an Initial Study to determine the proposed project's impact on the environment. Subsequently, Staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), as it was determined that the proposed project would have presented possible impacts to the environment, unless mitigated. The draft MND was circulated for review on June 30, 2016. As the Applicants' current subdivision resubmittal has been redesigned to meet all RS -2 lot width requirements, the project can be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA and therefore a Variance and MND are no longer required. More Specifically, Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt, under Article 19, Sections 15303(a) (Construction of Single -Family Residence) and 15315 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the project proposes to demolish an existing single-family residence to accommodate the construction of two new residences. The two new residences will consist of one 5,927 square foot two-story residence on Lot No. 1 and one 5,311 square foot two-story residence on Lot No. 2, both of which include attached garages and ancillary site improvements in the RS -2 zoning district, which allows for the construction of single-family residences. In addition, the requested subdivision is exempt, as the subdivision involves a property in an urbanized area zoned for residential, which is being subdivided into two parcels and is consistent with the General Plan and applicable zoning requirements in the RS -2 zoning district and all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available. As such, this project has been determined to be categorically exempt. FOLIAGE ANALYSIS As the two new residential structures would create more than 120 square feet of viewing or gathering area, a foliage analysis was triggered. On October 12, 2017, Staff conducted an F-18 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 19 updated foliage analysis of the subject property. During this analysis, Staff determined that no foliage on the Applicants' property significantly impairs the view from a viewing area of an adjoining property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT The subject project site is located within the City's Equestrian District. According to Section 17.46 of the RPVMC, properties in an equestrian overlay (Q) district may be used for the keeping of horses and other large domestic animals by property owners or lessees. However, keeping of horses or setting aside a portion of the property for the potential of keeping of horses (as stated in Section 17.46.080(5)) within the Q -district is not a requirement per the City's Development Code, but incentives are provided to encourage property owners to set aside property for future equestrian use. The Applicants have noted that they are not interested in setting aside area for equestrian use. CONCEPTUAL TRAILS PLAN The City's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) identifies the subject property in the vicinity of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail, Palos Verdes Drive Trail and the Radial and Connector Trails. The proposed project will not impact the conceptual trails, as these trails do not traverse the project site. PARK AND RECREATION DEDICATIONS AND FEES Pursuant to Section 16.20.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act, as a condition of approval of a parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay in lieu fees, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes. As a general standard for the City, it is found and determined that the public's interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety require 4 acres of land for each one 1,000 persons residing within the City be devoted to local parks and recreation purposes. The formulas for dedication of land or in lieu fees are stated in the Development Code under Section 16.20.100 and are based on the number of lots being created and the parkland acreage requirement per dwelling unit. At the time the final parcel map is filed, the subdivider shall dedicate the land or pay the parkland fees as determined by the City Council. A condition requiring payment of the appropriate fees based on the Development Code is included in the attached resolution. DRAINAGE The Applicants submitted a preliminary Drainage Plan prepared and wet -stamped by a registered Civil Engineer. According to the Drainage Plan, water runoff will follow the downslope topography of the lot flowing from the rear to the front (west to east) of the lots. The proposed Drainage Plan utilizes an on-site drainage system consisting of inlet drains and pipes that will collect and direct water runoff to two proposed rip rap outlet structures located along Palos Verdes Drive East at which point, water will then drain into the City's storm drain inlet. A Condition of Approval has been added that requires the applicant to obtain City -approval of the proposed Drainage Plan prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. F-19 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 20 PUBLIC COMMENTS On October 26, 2017, the public notice of the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review applications was sent to property owners within 500' of the subject site. Additionally, the public notice was published on the same day in the Peninsula News. As a result, Staff received four written public comments regarding the proposed project, which center on three common issues, which include the proposed project's compatibility with neighboring residential properties, in regards to structure size, scale/ bulk & mass and obstruction of views. Staff also received a public comment, with respect to the project's impacts on the Equestrian Overlay Zone and trails. The public comments are discussed in further detail below: Structure Size Some of the public comments that were received express concerns with the compatibility of the proposed structure sizes with that of neighboring properties. As discussed under Finding No. 8 (a) of the Height Variation section of this report; since their initial submittal, the Applicants have reduced the overall structure sizes of both residences from 7,471 square feet and 7,313 square feet to 5,927 and 5,311 square feet, on Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2, respectively. Additionally, the revised structure sizes include a 1,437 square foot basement area for the residence on Lot No. 1 and an 818 square foot basement area for the residence on Lot No. 2. As these areas are below -grade and not visible from PVDE, the resulting visible portion of the residence on Lot No. 1 is approximately 4,490 square feet and 4,493 square feet for the residence on Lot No. 2. Furthermore, as described in Table 2 (Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis) of this report, while the proposed structure sizes will be larger than the average structure size (3,544 square feet) amongst the closest 20 homes; the two proposed structure sizes will not be largest in the area, as there are two homes in the immediate area that are larger in size (6,222 square feet and 9,025 square feet). Scale and Bulk & Mass Three of the public comments received expressed a concern with respect to the proposed project's scale and bulk & mass and suggest that the structures present a "mc -mansion" and "mega -mansion" appearance. Specifically, the comments express a concern with the scale of the residence on Lot No. 1, as perceived from PVDE, since the proposed residence will be sited closer to the front property line and on a building pad that is at a higher elevation than that of PVDE. The siting of the residence has been designed to conform to the City's Subdivision and Development Code requirements. As proposed the siting of the residence on Lot No. 1 has been designed so the building is placed within its contiguous lot area requirement and has also been sited, so as to provide an increased front yard setback of 29', when only 20' is required by the Code. Furthermore, as discussed in Finding No. 8 (b) of the Height Variation section of this report, Staff is of the opinion that residence on Lot No. 1 provides fagade and roof articulation, as well as architectural features, which reduce the overall scale and bulk & mass of the proposed project. Obstruction of Views Two property owners at 27895 and 27601 PVDE expressed an obstruction of view concern related to the proposed project. A site inspection request was made by City Staff to the property owners at 27895 PVDE, which is located west of the project site, in order to assess the view concern. As of the preparation of this report, Staff did not receive a response to the site inspection request. From the information that is available, including aerial maps and topographic F-20 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 21 conditions in the area, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project would not create a significant view impairment. Specifically, as discussed in the Height Variation section of this report, properties to the west of the project site have views over the subject property that include the ocean, city lights and harbor area. As the properties to the west are elevated approximately 55' to 60' higher than the subject property, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will not impact views at 27895 PUDE. Staff was able to visit the property at 27601 PVDE and determined that the proposed residence did not create a significant view impairment, as views of the city lights, and mountains could be observed above the roofline of the proposed residence on Lot No. 1, as seen in the associated photograph below. Impact on Equestrian Overlay Zone & Trails A public comment expressed concern with the subdivision of Equestrian zone properties and possible impact to nearby trails. As discussed earlier, the subject property is within the City's Equestrian Overlay (Q) district and may be used for the keeping of horses and other large domestic animals. However, keeping of horses or setting aside a portion of the property for the potential of keeping of horses within the Q -district is not a requirement per the City's Development Code. The Applicants have noted that they are not interested in setting aside area for equestrian use. With respect to the proposed project's impact on adjacent trails, the project plans do not indicate that the proposed improvements will impede, reduce or eliminate nearby trails, which include trails identified in the City's Conceptual Trails Plan as the Palos Verdes Loop Trail, Palos Verdes Drive Trail and the Radial and Connector Trails. CONCLUSION Based on the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve, with conditions, the requested Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review to demolish an existing single -story residence in order to subdivide F-21 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE NO. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PAGE 22 an existing 43,677 square foot lot into two separate lots, and a request to construct two new two-story, single-family residences with associated grading on each lot. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to act on: 1. Deny, without prejudice, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (SUB2014-00003), Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00273- Lot No. 1 & ZON2016-00120- Lot No. 2). 2. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. ATTACHMENTS • P.C. Resolution No. 2017- o Exhibit "A" — Conditions of Approval • August 9, 2016 P.C. Meeting Minutes • September 27, 2016 P.C. Meeting Minutes • Public Comments • Project Plans F-22 P.C. Resolution No. 2017 F-23 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VESTING PARCEL MAP NO. 72658, HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING VACANT LOT AT 27581 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST (PVDE) INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS AND TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON EACH LOT. PARCEL NO. 1 WILL BE 20,649 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND IMPROVED WITH A 5,927 TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH 1,528 CUBIC YARDS OF RELATED GRADING. PARCEL NO. 2 WILL 23,029 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND IMPROVED WITH A 5,311 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH 1,766 CUBIC YARDS OF RELATED GRADING (CASE NOS. SUB2014-0003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120). WHEREAS, on July 14, 2014, the applicant submitted an application for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658, Variance, Height Variation, Grading, and Site Plan Review to subdivide an existing lot located at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) into two separate lots (Case No. SUB2014-00003) in order to construct two new residences on each lot (Case Nos. ZON2014- 00273 & ZON2016-00120); and, WHEREAS, on August 8, 2014, based on preliminary review, Staff deemed the applications incomplete for processing. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information by Staff and the City Engineer, Staff deemed the project complete on May 25, 2016; and, WHEREAS, on June 30, 2016, the public notice of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Variance, Height Variation and Grading Permit applications was sent to the property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies. Additionally, a public notice was published on the same day in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2016, 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 and at which time the Planning Commission directed the applicant to redesign the proposed subdivision to comply with zoning requirements, thereby eliminating the need for a Variance and to modify the design of the two new residences with respect to reducing the structure sizes, bulk and addressing privacy concerns. The Commission continued the public hearing to September 27, 2016. WHEREAS, on September 27, 2016, the Commission considered the continued item and accepted Staff's recommendation to receive and file a status report to continue the public hearing on the requested applications to a meeting date uncertain, as the applicant requested additional time to complete their redesigned project; and, WHEREAS, on February 27, 2017, the applicant submitted a redesigned project requesting an application for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation, Grading, and Site Plan Review to subdivide the existing lot located at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) into two separate lots (Case No. SUB2014-00003) in order to construct two new P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 1 of 18 F-24 residences on each lot (Case Nos. ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120), as well as eliminating the initial Variance request and the need for the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, WHEREAS, the applicant submitted revisions on multiple occasions, with the final submittal provided on September 27, 2017. Subsequently, Staff deemed the applications complete for processing on October 26, 2017; and WHEARAS, on October 26, 2017, the public notice of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Height Variation and Grading Permit applications was re -issued and sent to property owners within 500' of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published on the same day in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; 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), determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA, under Article 19, Sections 15303(a) (Construction of Single -Family Residence) and 15315 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was no longer required as part of the Applicants' proposal. Specifically, the project proposed to demolish an existing single-family residence to accommodate the construction of two new residences and the requested subdivision involves a property in an urbanized area zoned for residential, which is being subdivided into two parcels and is consistent with the General Plan and applicable zoning requirements in the RS -2 zoning district and all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available; and, WHEREAS, after notices were issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 28, 2017, 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 project involves Vesting Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the subdivision of an existing lot at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East into two separate lots and to allow the development of one single-family dwelling unit on each lot. Lot No. 1 will be 20,649 square feet in area and improved with a 5,927square foot two-story residence with 1,528 cubic yards of grading. Lot No. 2 will be 23,029 square feet in area and improved with a 5,311 square foot two-story residence with 1,766 cubic yards of related grading Section 2: Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658 complies with the requirements set forth in the State's Subdivision Map Act, the Development Code and other applicable sections of the City's Municipal Code, because the Planning Commission finds that: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan. More specifically, the subject parcel is located within the General Plan land use designation of "Less than one dwelling unit per acre" (:51 d.u./acre). All new residential lots within the <_1 d.u./acre density range must maintain a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, which is also the minimum P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 2 of 18 F-25 lot size required for properties in the RS -2 zoning district. As proposed, Lot Nos. 1 and 2 will be 20,649 square feet and 23,029 in size, respectively, which is consistent with the :51 d.u./acre General Plan land use designation, and RS -2 Zoning District. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan designation of "Less than one dwelling unit per acre" (51 d.u./acre). More specifically, the General Plan requires new lots to comply with the lot dimensions listed in the Development Code under the appropriate zoning district. The subject parcel is located within the RS -2 zone district. Based on the existing zoning, the proposal complies with the requirements set forth in the Development Code. Specifically, code requires that new lots within the RS -2 zone district are at least 20,000 square feet in size, and have a minimum lot width 90' and a minimum lot depth of 120'. Lot No.1 is proposed to be 20, 649 square feet with a width of 181' and a depth of 120' and Lot No. 2 is proposed to be 23,029 square feet with a width of 168' and a depth of 137', thus meeting the minimum lot dimension requirements. Additionally, both Lots 1 and 2 will have ingress and egress from PVDE, with an easement over the driveway on Lot No.1 to allow ingress and egress, fire access and utilities for Lot No. 2. C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the development. More specifically, the proposal complies with the requirements set forth in the Development Code as stated above. Additionally, each of the proposed lots will have a contiguous lot area that exceeds 6,600 square feet, which is the minimum required for a RS -2 zoning district. Pursuant to Section 16.04.040.D of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC), the contiguous lot area is the gross lot area less slopes steeper than thirty-five (35) percent and the required setback areas. Based on the applicant's plans, the size of the contiguous lot area on each of the vacant lots will be large enough to accommodate a single-family residence that complies with the standards set forth in the Development Code for a RS -2 zoning district, as it pertains to structure size, lot coverage and setbacks. Further, access will be provided from PVDE and utilities are available for connection from existing lines in the public street right-of-way. Project plans have been presented to the City of Rolling Hills Estates for approval of the requested driveway and associated grading, as the property has driveway access from PVDE in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. A Condition of Approval has been added that requires the Applicants to demonstrate approval of the proposed improvements within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, prior to issuance of any Grading and Building Permit. Additionally, access will be provided from Palos Verdes Drive East, with an easement over Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2. D. The proposed subdivision and associated improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or harm wild life or their habitat. Specifically, the subdivision will create two lots, which will allow for the construction of two new residential structures in an area that has been previously developed for residential purposes In addition, according to the General Plan's Biotic Species Map, the subject property is not located within an area designated as a blue line stream or an area that contains major wildlife. Further, according to the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), no Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species have been identified on the subject property and/or any nearby properties. Therefore, Staff believes that this finding can be made since the proposed project and any potential future development will not cause significant damage to the environment or injure any fish or wildlife. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. More specifically, the proposed residential structures will have to be constructed in conformance with the City's Development Code standards and require P.C. Resolution No. 2017- PagV e approval by the Building & Safety Division to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. Additionally, the City's Geotechnical Consultant has reviewed and provided an "in -concept" approval of the geotechnical reports that were prepared for the proposed parcel map. Furthermore, prior to grading and building permits being issued by the Building & Safety Division, a more detailed site and project -specific geotechnical report will need to be approved by the City's Geotechnical Consultant. As for drainage, Section 16.20.050 of the Development Code requires that the Applicants mitigate any potential impacts caused by drainage flow from the subject property to any adjacent properties. Staff will incorporate conditions that require the Applicants to address all drainage flow concerns prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed development, should the subdivision be approved. With regards to utilities, the existing parcel is directly adjacent to a public street (PVDE) that will permit connection to existing water lines that are serviced by the California Water Service Company and which currently serve the existing surrounding residential development. With regards to wastewater, each of the new lots will be required to connect to existing sewer lines, the location and design of which will be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Estates because these utilities are located in their jurisdiction. Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that this finding can be made since the proposed subdivision will result in lots that can sustain residential development that will not cause any serious public health problems. F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not be in conflict with the easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision since there are no existing or proposed public easements on the subject lot. Section 3: A Height Variation is approved for the construction of a new 5,927 square foot two- story residence (basement and attached garage included) on Lot No. 1 and a new 5,311 square foot (garage and basement included) two-story residence, both of which will exceed the 16720' height limitation for lots with a building pad at a proposed height of 26' for the residence on Lot No. 1 and 24' for the residence on Lot No. 2 because: A. The Applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process guidelines and procedures established by the City Council by obtaining signatures from 70% of the landowners within 100 feet and 25% of the total number of landowners within 500 feet (including those within 100 feet). B. The City's General Plan, adopted June 26, 1975, identifies viewing points (turnouts along vehicular corridors for the purposes of viewing) and viewing sites (public site areas, which due to their physical locations on the Peninsula, provide a significant viewing vantage) within the City. Due to the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structures are not visible from a public viewing area or viewing site, as defined by the General Plan. Additionally, the subject property is not located within the City's Coastal Specific Plan, and there are no public trails that traverse the property. C. The proposed structures are not located on a ridge or promontory. The proposed residence would be located on an existing building pad, which is not on a prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on two sides. D. The proposed new structures that are above sixteen feet in height, as defined in Section 17.02.040(B) of the Development Code, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. Views of the ocean, harbor and city lights are observed by the adjacent properties in a west and south P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 4 of 18 F-27 direction. Given that the building pads of the properties to the west of the subject property are elevated approximately 554' to 60'-0" higher than the subject property and the properties to the south of the subject property are elevated approximately 25'-0" to 30,4, higher than the subject property, the westerly and southerly neighbors will continue to have a view over the proposed residences without any adverse impact caused by the proposed project. The project site abuts residential properties along Harbor Sight Drive in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, which expressed view concerns with the Applicants' initial submittal. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has a View Ordinance, which protects views of properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, but does not apply to residences outside of the City. E. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by considering: (a) the amount of view impairment caused by the proposed new structures that are above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) the amount of view impairment caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. There will be no view impairment to the neighboring properties caused by the proposed project due to the property's building pad elevation and the direction of view. Similar construction at 27591 PVDE, 27601 PVDE and 27649 PVDE would not result in a significant cumulative view impairment because of the sloping topography of the neighborhood. Specifically, these properties are located on building pads that are approximately 25-0" to 40'-0" lower in elevation than the properties located to the west, which would have viewing areas above the roofline heights of the two proposed residences. Furthermore, the property immediately adjacent to the subject property (27591 PVDE) is already developed with a two-story residence. F. The two revised residences comply with all other Code requirements, including, but not limited to the minimum required setbacks, parking, and maximum allowed lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning district. G. The proposed structures are compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style, setbacks, bulk and mass, number of stories and open space between buildings. Specifically, the proposed project complies with the maximum lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning district (40%), as Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 propose a lot coverage of 33% and 21%, respectively. An aerial survey of the surrounding neighborhood conducted by Staff indicated that many of the residential properties in the immediate neighborhood are at or near the same lot coverage as being proposed on Lot Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, the revised design has reduced the overall structure sizes of the two new residences. Specifically, the revised design proposes a 5,927 square foot (1,437 square foot basement included) and a 5,311 square foot (818 basement included) two-story residence on Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2, respectively. Given that the basement areas are below grade, the structure size of the residences on Lot Nos. 1 and Lot 2 that will in effect be visible, will be 4,490 square feet and 4,493 square feet, respectively. Although the size of the proposed residences will be larger than the average in the immediate neighborhood, the two proposed residences are not the largest homes in the neighborhood (9,025 square feet). In terms of architectural style and materials, the proposed design of the residential structures use elements found in various architectural styles like Spanish Colonial, Monterey and Mediterranean/ Italian Renaissance. The residences within the immediate neighborhood vary in architectural style, borrowing elements commonly found in Spanish Colonial, Monterey, Mediterranean/ Italian Renaissance and California Ranch. The roof designs include gable, hip, shed and flat that P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 5 of 18 F-28 use materials such as composition shingle and ceramic tile. The roof pitches and overhangs also vary in size. The exterior finishes of the neighboring properties are either stucco or wood siding and includes natural rock and brick accents. With regards to open space between structures, an aerial review of the closest 20 homes, indicates that the open space between structures varies from property to property, as a result of asymmetrical lot conditions in the area and the construction of customized homes, and the proposed project does not create an anomaly in terms of open space between structures. In terms of number of stories in the area, there are existing two story residences in the area, so the two new two-story residences are not introducing a new element to the neighborhood. Lastly, with respect to the project's bulk and mass, the project has been redesigned to eliminate an "compound appearance" of the project by providing increased setbacks between the two residences In addition, the design of the two residences provide architectural features and projections that reduce the overall bulk and mass. As part of the resubmittal, the project has been modified so that the proposed residence on Lot No. 2 is sited towards the rear of the lot and will be notched into the existing slope, so as to further reduce the bulk and mass of the overall project. H. The proposed new structures that are above sixteen feet in height do not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the occupant of abutting residences, as the proposed second story balconies on the proposed residences on Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 are positioned and designed, so as to face a public street (Palos Verdes Drive East). In addition to the above, the north elevations of the proposed residences incorporate windows along the second stories. While these windows face properties to the north of the project site, along Harbor Sight Road within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the proposed residences provide a large enough side yard setback minimizing potential privacy issues. Specifically, the residences on Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 provide a 65' and a 26' side yard setback to the northerly side property line. Section 4: Approval of a Major Grading Permit to allow a total of 3,683 cubic yards of grading (389 cubic yards will occur in the City of Rolling Hills Estates under a separate entitlement process) to accommodate the construction of two residences of each of the proposed lots at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East is warranted because the Planning Commission finds that: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The primary use of the existing subject lot is residential as identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning map. The applicant is requesting to subdivide the existing lot to accommodate the development of each lot. The requested Grading Permit is to allow a total 3,683 cubic feet of project related earth movement consisting of 1,528 cubic yards of grading for Lot No. 1 and 1,766 cubic yards of grading for Lot No. 2, as well as the construction of an 8' high up-slope retaining wall at the rear of the residence on Lot No. 2. The proposed grading is to accommodate the construction of two new residential structures with basement areas, driveway access to the two properties and related site improvements including a pool, patio and hardscape areas, which do not exceed what is necessary for the permitted use of the lot. B. The project grading includes excavation under the building footprints of the two proposed residences. The subject property survey indicates existing grade elevations in the area of the existing building pad range between approximately 427.00' at the east end of the existing building pad and 431.00' at the west end of the existing building pad. The proposed finished grade of the building pads will be approximately 426.00' at the east end of the proposed pads, and 427.00' at the west end of the pads. The proposed grading P.C. Resolution No. 2017- PagFX68 under each lot will result in lower building pads for the two proposed residential properties by approximately 1 to 3 feet. The view of the harbor and city lights that the adjacent neighbors currently enjoy is in an easterly direction. Given that the building pads of the proposed residences will be lowered and that the building pads of the properties to the west of the subject property are elevated approximately 55'-0" to 60'-0" higher than the subject property and the properties to the south of the subject property are elevated approximately 25-0" to 30'-0" higher than the subject property; the westerly and southerly neighbors will continue to have a view over the subject property without any adverse impact caused by the proposed project. C. 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 requested grading for the proposed subdivision is to accommodate two new residences within the City's permitted height requirements of 16730' for an upslope lot. The ridgeline of the structure on Lot 1 will be 16' above the highest existing grade adjacent to the structure, and 29' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure. The ridgeline of the structure on Lot 2 will be 15.66' above the highest existing grade adjacent to the structure, and 30' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure. The requested grading is to notch the proposed residences into the slope to minimize its visual appearance. As a result, although improvements will be visible from the street level (PVDE), by notching the structure into the slope, the grading will minimize the visual impact of the structures from the neighboring properties. Additionally, the RPVDC states that on sloping lots, structures may have building envelope of up to 16' on the upper side and 30' on the lower side, by right. As stated above, this view finding does not apply when grading is utilized to lower the finished grade under the building footprint, as proposed in the applicant's grading design. D. The proposed grading maintains a majority of the natural contours on the subject property. Specifically, the project proposes to cut and fill along the front of Lot No. 1 to accommodate a shared driveway and to grade down the existing building pad, so as to provide a lower building pad for Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 for the construction of the two new requested residences. On Lot No. 2, the project proposal includes additional cut in order to notch the proposed residence into the existing slope, as well as some fill to support rear yard improvements including a pool, patio and hardscape. The proposed grading is generally limited to developed portions of the lot. The finished contours will blend with the existing contours on the subject property. E. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features because although the slope will be altered by cutting out sections of the slope where the structures and ancillary improvements will be situated, the rest of the site will be preserved through the remaining portions being sculpted to reasonably match the existing contours. Also, there are no significant and protected natural topographic features that would be disturbed by the proposed grading especially since the existing lot is improved as a pad lot. Moreover, as previously stated, the proposed grading generally follows the existing slope of the property and results in finished slopes that appear reasonably natural. Additionally, although some land -sculpturing is proposed to occur, it is designed so as to blend the manufactured slopes into the natural topography. Furthermore, prior to the certificate of occupancy, landscape plans for both properties will be reviewed and the plants installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, which will aid in stabilizing the graded slope and will also contribute towards blending the manufactured slope into the natural topography. Thus, the Planning Commission believes that the amount of P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 7 of 18 F-30 grading beyond that required to accommodate the proposed residence has been minimized. F. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The proposed structures are compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. Specifically, the project proposes to cut and fill a portion of the existing slope at the rear of Lot No. 2 in order to accommodate the proposed residence. By doing so, the residence on Lot No. 2 will be setback or recessed into the existing slope, which is consistent with design features of adjacent properties. In addition, the project also proposes to utilize fill on Lot No. 1 to accommodate a new shared driveway to provide access to the properties, which is consistent with features of homes in the area. The proposed structure sizes will not be out of scale because the proposed structures on Lot Nos. 1 and 2 are within the range of structure sizes for the neighborhood. As for the number of stories, the proposed project is not introducing new feature to the neighborhood, as other 2 story residences in the area exist. Furthermore, building siting and the use of various design features and articulations are used to minimize the apparent bulk/mass of the two new structures. Lastly, the proposed fagade treatments, architectural style, structure height, roof design, setbacks, building materials and bulk/mass of the new residence is similar to and thus compatible with the existing neighborhood character. G. 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. However, the proposed grading does not involve a new residential tract and therefore this criterion does not apply. H. The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, maximum finished slopes, and retaining wall heights in the front, side and adjacent to driveways. However, the grading does not conform to maximum depth of cut and fill. Specifically, the project proposes a fill of 6.25' on Lot No. 1 in order to accommodate a proposed shared driveway. The proposal to exceed the maximum depth of fill is reasonable and necessary as the proposed driveway will provide vehicular accessibility to the site, including Fire Department access. Section 5: Applicant's Site Plan Review is approved for the proposed ancillary improvements to Lot Nos. 1 and 2 including balconies, driveways and hardscape areas, outdoor kitchen areas, and construction of a pool at the rear of the proposed residence on Lot No. 2. The proposed ancillary improvements comply with all applicable code requirements, including, but not limited to minimum required setbacks, parking, and maximum allowed lot coverage in the RS -2 zoning district. Additionally, the proposed balconies will not result in an infringement of privacy to neighboring properties. Section 6: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought, is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. 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 Wednesday, December 13, P.C. Resolution No. 2017- Pag-$ of 118 2017. A $2,275.00 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 December 13, 2017. Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review the subdivision of an existing lot at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East into two separate lots and to allow the development of one single-family dwelling unit on each lot. Lot No. 1 will be 20,649 square feet in area and improved with a 5,927square foot two-story residence with 1,528 cubic yards of grading. Lot No. 2 will be 23,029 square feet in area and improved with a 5,311 square foot two- story residence with 1,766 cubic yards of related grading, subject to the Conditions of Approval as shown in attached Exhibit "A." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of November, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: William James, Vice Chairman Ara Mihranian, AICP Director of Community Development Secretary to the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 9 of 18 F-32 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review Case Nos. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East General Conditions: Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, 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 of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public notification. 6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page PO 0# �, revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code and administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. 8. If the Applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non- conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non- conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped APPROVED plans. 12. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 14. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7:00 AM Monday through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 11 of 18 F-34 15. If construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30 calendar days, the Applicant shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. Unless required to protect against a safety hazard, temporary construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than 15 days prior to commencement of construction. 16. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the Applicant shall employ effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/ or watering. 17. This approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Grading Permit expires 24 months from the date of approval of the parcel map by the Planning Commission, unless extended per Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 16.12.040 of the Development Code. Any request for extension shall be submitted to the Planning Commission in writing and with the appropriate fee prior to the expiration of the map. 18. The applicant shall be required to pay for the cost of services to be provided on behalf of the City by any outside consultants that have been retained by the City to render services specifically in connection with this project, in the form of a trust deposit account, prior to commencement of such services (e.g. City Engineer, City Attorney, geotechnical consultants, biologist, etc.). The applicant shall adequately fund said trust deposit accounts prior to the commencement of services, in amounts reasonably requested by the City. In addition, the trust deposits shall be replenished within two weeks of receipt of notice from the City that additional funds are needed. 19. All costs associated with plan check reviews and site inspections for the Department of Public Works shall be incurred by the applicant through the establishment of a trust deposit with the Director of Public Works at the time of plan check submittal or site inspection request. 20. The silhouette frames shall be removed within seven (7) days of a Planning Commission approval. 21. 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. 22. During the construction of the proposed project, the applicant shall ensure that all onsite vehicles, equipment and materials are temporarily screened by fencing pursuant to the City's requirements as described in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. 23. The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise insulating features during construction to reduce source noise levels. 24. All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page F 3 �, noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated during construction. Project Specific Conditions Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658 25. The approval of this Vesting Tentative Parcel Map allows the existing 43,677 square foot lot to be subdivided into two separate lots for the development of two single-family two- story residences. The two approved lots shall comply with the minimum lot dimensions required by the Development Code for the RS -2 Zoning District. Lot No. 1 shall contain a lot area of 20,649 square feet and measure 181' in width and 120' in depth (as measured pursuant to Code Section 17.48.020); while Lot No. 2 shall contain a lot area of 23,029 square feet and measure 137' in width and 168' in depth (as measured pursuant to Code Section 17.48.020). 26. Easements shall not be granted within easements dedicated or offered for dedication to the City until after the final map is filed and recorded with the County Recorder. No easements shall be accepted after recording of the final map that in any way conflict with a prior easement dedicated to the City, or any public utility. All existing easements shall remain in full force and effect unless expressly released by the holder of the easement. 27. The proposed parcel map shall adhere to all the applicable dedications and improvements required per Chapter 16.20 of the Development Code. Prior to the Submittal of Final Parcel Map No. 72658 28. According to Section 16.20.130 of the Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act, at the time of making the survey for the final parcel map, the engineer or surveyor shall set sufficient durable monuments to conform to the standards of the Subdivision Map Act. Prior to recording the final map, the exterior boundary of land being subdivided shall be adequately monumented with no less than a two (2) inch iron pipe, at least eighteen (18) inches long, set in dirt and filled with concrete at each boundary corner. The parcel lot corners shall be monumented with no less than one-half inch iron pipe for the interior monuments. Spikes and washers may be set in asphalt pavement and lead and tacks may be set in concrete pavement or improvements in lieu of pipes. All monuments shall be permanently marked or tagged with the registration or license number of the engineer or surveyor under whose supervision the survey was made. 29. A note shall be placed on the final map stating that a geology and/or soils report has been prepared in conjunction with the subdivision. 30. All existing and proposed easements, including the proposed driveway easement and any utility easements over Lot No. 1, shall be clearly illustrated and described on the final parcel map. 31. All proposed easement documents, including the driveway easement and any utility easements over Lot No. 1, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to approval of the final map. 32. Prior to submitting the final map to the City Engineer for examination, the applicant shall obtain clearance from all affected departments and divisions, including a clearance from P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 13 of 18 F-36 the City Engineer for the following items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, correctness of certificates and signatures. 33. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property prior to approval of the final map. Prior to the Recordation of Final Parcel Map No. 72658 34. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map, the applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. 35. The final map is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. A trust deposit shall be established with the City to cover any costs of the City Engineer's review. 36. Prior to recordation, the applicant shall supply the City with a digital copy of the Final Parcel Map in the format required by the County of Los Angeles, through ordinance 99- 0080. An additional copy for the County of Los Angeles will also be required upon submittal of the Final Parcel Map to the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. After Recordation of the Final Parcel Map No. 72658 37. The applicant shall supply the City with one mylar (if applicable) and five (5) copies of the map within five (5) calendar days after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. 38. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for the lots created and approved herein, the applicant shall obtain addresses for each of the new lots from the City. Grading Permit 39. This approval shall allow the demolition of an existing 4,339 square foot single-family two- story residence and site improvements including a pool, retaining wall and hardscape areas in order to accommodate the construction of two new homes and associated grading on each lot, as further described below: l_nt Nn_ 1 A. The construction of a new 5,927 square foot (3 -car attached garage and basement included) two-story residence. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a license land surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection. B. Ancillary improvements including two attached covered patios, an outdoor kitchen and driveway. C. 1,528 cubic yards of associated grading, consisting of 1,272 cubic yards of cut and 256 cubic yards of fill (1,016 cubic yards of export). Lot No. 2 P.C. Resolution No. 2017- Page Pof, �8 A. The construction of a new 5,311 square foot (3 -car garage and basement included) two-story residence. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection. B. Ancillary improvements including a new pool & spa, attached covered patio, new driveway and an 8' high up-sloping retaining wall. C. 1,766 cubic yards of grading, consisting of 1,504 cubic yards of cut and 262 cubic yards of fill (1,242 cubic yards of export). 40. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved residences on Lot Nos. 1 and 2, as approved herein, shall maintain the following setbacks for newly created lots in the RS -2 zoning district: Front yard setback — 20' minimum Interior side yard setbacks — 10' minimum per side / 20' minimum total of both sides Rear yard setback — 20' minimum BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 41. The height of the residence on Lot No. 1 shall not exceed 22.9' in height, as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 429.1') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'); and an overall height of 26' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 426.00') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'). The height of the residence on Lot No. 2 shall not exceed 16.5' in height, as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev.435.5') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'); and an overall height of 24', as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 428') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 452.00'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection, based on the above-mentioned instructions. 42. A minimum 3 -car garage shall be provided and maintained for each proposed residence, and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth, with a minimum of 7' of vertical clearance over the space. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth. 43. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (33% proposed for Lot No. 1 and 21 % proposed for Lot No. 2) for each lot. 44. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback areas for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall each not exceed 50% for each lot. Grading P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 15 of 18 F-38 45. New slopes shall not exceed 67% adjacent to the driveway and 35% elsewhere on the property. 46. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. 47. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water shall be applied to areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. 48. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. 49. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk material or other debris from being tracked onto the City's public roadways, and if tracked, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up the impacted City's public roadways. 50. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no trucks shall be allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment. 51. Prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit, a Haul Route Permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department. 52. The applicant shall be responsible for repairs to any public street that may be damaged during the grading and/or construction of any future development of the subject parcels. 53. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall obtain and provide proof of approvals from the City of Rolling Hills for the improvements within their jurisdiction, such as for the construction of the proposed driveway, landscaping, grading and drainage improvements. 54. Prior to the certificate of occupancy, landscape plans for both properties shall be reviewed and the plants installed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 55. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Community Development Director's satisfaction that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for the control of dust. 56. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as instantaneous gusts) exceed P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page Ply 25 mph. To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. 57. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems. 58. Prior to issuance of any grading permit and/or building permits for the properties, a grading plan and geotechnical report shall be prepared for review and approval by the Building Official and the City Geologist. 59. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Building Official for approval that shall include BMPs for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, the Erosion Control Plan shall include post -construction BMPs that apply to runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. 60. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits, the proposed sewer system for each new property shall be reviewed and approved by the Building & Safety Division. 61. Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit for new construction, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Drainage Plan by the City's Building & Safety Division and the City's Public Works Director finding that stormwater runoff as a result from the development of the subject site is designed to flow and utilize an on-site drainage system that directs runoff into the existing storm drainage system. Lighting and Glare 62. All exterior illumination for the new residential structures on both Lots 1 and 2 shall comply with the provisions of Section 17.56.030 (Outdoor Lighting for Residential Uses) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code for each lot. 63. Prior to the issuance of building permits, all residential lighting shall be fully shielded, and no outdoor lighting shall be 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 for each lot. 64. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the specifications for the glass type, color, and reflectivity shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Community Development Director for each lot. Utilities 65. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, which shall include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for a land division. Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. 66. Prior to a grading and/or building permit issuance, Fire Department review will be required P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 17 of 18 F-40 to ensure adequate emergency access. 67. All utilities to and on the subject lots shall be provided underground, including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy 68. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall submit complete Landscape Plans to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Director of Community Development ensuring that the graded slopes are landscaped and retaining walls screened with landscaping. The final approved landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. Said plans may be required to comply with the State of California Water Efficient Landscape requirements. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page r X18 August 9, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes F-42 unenforceable. He stated that this update needs tQ'be completed and no more time spent on the update. 7 Director Mihranian reiterated that the tra c study will go before the Traffic Safety Committee for their review and recomme ation. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if th raffic Safety Committee had any input in regards to the RFP for the consultant. Director Mihranian answered th they did not have input, but the City's Traffic Engineer from Public Works Departme did. Commissioner Nelson Aoved to receive and file the report, seconded by Commissioner James./Approved without objection. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Plan, Subdivision for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658,Variance, Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 and ZON2016-0020): 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report, giving a brief overview of the proposed lot split and two new houses. He explained that, as proposed the two proposed lots do not meet the City's 90 foot minimum lot width requirement for the RS -2 Zoning District. He stated that staff could not make the findings to recommend approval of the Variance, as there were no exceptional circumstances applicable to the property, the Variance is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right, granting the Variance will be detrimental to the public welfare, and the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. He noted, however, that applicant has identified two options for the subdivision that would meet the City's development standards. He discussed the need for the proposed height variation, grading permit, and site plan review. In doing the neighborhood compatibility analysis required with the height variation, staff found the proposed houses were not compatible with the neighboring properties and stated staff was concerned with the overall size, height, bulk and mass. He stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission direct the applicant to redesign the proposed subdivision to comply with the City's minimum lot width requirement and to reduce the square footage, height, and bulk and mass of the two proposed homes, and to continue the item to the September 27th meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser disclosed that he had, a little over two years ago, met with the representatives of this project and advised them to pay great attention to the reaction of the neighborhood and pay particular attention to the advice and counsel of staff. Commissioner Bradley asked if there was a basic or legal right to subdivide a property to the minimum dimensions. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 3 F-43 Director Mihranian answered that per Title 16 of the Municipal Code, there are four things that have to be factored in when considering a lot split: the minimum lot width, the minimum lot depth, the minimum lot area, and the contiguous lot area. If those four fundamental standards can be met, and the findings can be met, then a subdivision is feasible. Assistant City Attorney Burrows added the underlying right to subdivide comes from the City's Zoning Ordinance and the Planning Commission's determination as to whether or not the application meets the requirements of the Code. Commissioner Bradley questioned if the Commission can approve a development where the only access to the lot is through another City, or does there have to be access to the lot from Rancho Palos Verdes. Director Mihranian stated that access to the property does not necessarily have to be through Rancho Palos Verdes. Commissioner Leon asked if the minimum 90 foot width requirement meant that the lot had to be 90 feet wide at some point, or if the entire lot had to be a minimum of 90 feet wide. Director Mihranian explained the measurement is taken from the mid -point of the lot that is most parallel with the front property line. Vice Chairman Cruikshank opened the public hearing. Nital Patel (applicant) stated that he and his brother are proposing the two houses, one for his family and one for his brother's family. He stated that to do a lot split there are four criteria and he has met three of the four. In regards to the fourth, they are short six feet combined. He stated there are three option to split the lot, however he felt this is the best option. He noted that the square footage also represents the garage and the basement areas. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Patel why they chose the lot split that does not follow the required 90 foot lot width. Mr. Patel explained that one of the options has one house behind the other, and that front house will block the view from the rear house. The other option has the houses at an angle where they are almost facing each other rather than facing the street. Tim Racisz (architect) stated he also designed Mr. Maupin's home located to the south, which he modeled these two proposed homes after in terms of size and design. He explained that early in the process he identified that the lot width would be an issue, however being only six feet short he did not think it made sense to force a solution on the project that was inferior to what is being proposed. He noted that this proposal gives two Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 4 F-44 houses that are side by side facing the street, one house does not block the view from the other house, the length of the driveway is reduced, and the amount of grading is reduced. In regards to the size of the houses, he indicated the owners are willing to work with staff to reduce the size of the houses to make them more compatible. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Racisz how large the house to the south is. Mr. Racisz answered the house is about 5,400 square feet of living space and has an oversized three car garage. Director Mihranian indicated that the home is on the neighborhood compatibility chart in the staff report. The chart states the house is 6,222 square feet. Commissioner Leon noted that currently, as designed, the two houses look pretty much like mirror images of one another, and noted that when viewed from Palos Verdes Drive East they will look more like a single, 15,000 square foot structure. He asked Mr. Racisz how the bulk and mass can be mitigated. Mr. Racisz explained that currently there are silhouettes on the property, and one cannot tell where one silhouette ends and the other begins. When the houses are actually built, while similar, they will have different materials and be different colors. Commissioner Nelson asked what the distance will be between the two houses. Mr. Racisz answered that the distance will be twenty feet between the homes. Doug Maupin stated it is his home to the south, and the living space is 5,300 square feet with 900 square feet of storage. He stated that from his property he has no issue with the proposed project, as there are no privacy or view issues. He felt the owners would be more than willing to work with staff, and felt the solutions are probably less desirable than a nice clean straight line. He stated he supports the current project. Dr. George Wissa explained that it was his understanding that a portion of the lots is greater than 90 feet in width and a portion is less than 90 feet, however it is not 90 feet at the mid -point of the lots. He felt that the proposed project is much more pleasing to the eye than the alternatives, and reminded the Commission that the issue is just six feet or less. Dr. Sam Vazih stated he supports the currently proposed project, and felt that it will only help the community and surrounding property values. Ramin Rabii stated he also fully supports the current proposed project. Mike Patel stated he supports the project, however understood the need for compromise. He hoped that a reasonable compromise could be reached. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 5 F-45 Sandhya Walia stated she does not see an issue with the currently proposed project. She felt that both of the proposed properties fit within the range of surrounding properties. She also felt these homes will give potential to the surrounding properties in terms of what can be built in the future. Ritesh Sonea stated he supports the current project and the homes will add tremendous value to the neighborhood. Robert Schachter stated he is an attorney representing the Patels in the legal matters of this issue. He also noted that he is a Commissioner on the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission. Regarding the question as to whether or not a subdivision was a legal right, he stated that it was his understanding that as long as all of the code requirements for a subdivision are met, there is a vested right to do so. He did not think it was a discretionary call at that point. In regards to the 90 foot wide code requirement, he questioned why the requirement to take the measurement at the mid -point was part of the code. He noted the requirement will be met under either of the other two options. He therefore felt it would be appropriate to approve a variance for the current configuration since it is a better project. Commissioner Nelson noted Mr. Schachter's statement that if the applicant meets the code requirements they are entitled to a subdivision. He asked Mr. Schachter if the current project meets code requirements. Mr. Schachter answered that currently the project does not. Dr. Jeanette Derdemez felt the proposed project would be an asset to the community and supported the project. Scott Ramsay (1 Harbor Sight Drive, RHE), displayed a photo of the view he will have from his home if the new houses are built as proposed. He did not feel this project would be compatible with the neighborhood, and noted it will be massively overbuilt for even a single lot. He also noted that these large homes will be built on some of the smallest lots in the City. He pointed out that Mr. Maupin's home to the south is built into a grade and is not nearly as visible from the neighboring lots or the street. He also noted that these proposed houses are dramatically above grade, and having only 20 feet between the homes with a common motor court will make the houses look like one enormous structure. Robert Bennett (16 Deerhill Drive, RHE), stated he submitted a letter with a photo that he superimposed the image of the proposed homes onto to show what happens to the view. He noted that the two homes together, with their basements, is over 16,000 square feet of buildings immediately adjacent to approximate '/2 acre lots with 2,500 to 3,000 square foot homes on them. He felt the homes below will have privacy issues with the tall buildings built behind them. He felt the variance requests are excessive and added that because of the configuration of the property with the slopes in the front and rear forces the building to be built in the center of the lot, and is therefore not a functional full acre lot for construction. Finally, he noted that the Planning Commission in Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 6 F-46 has denied projects in the City when they adversely affect homes in Rancho Palos Verdes, and he hoped this Planning Commission would give the Rolling Hills Estates residents the same respect. Glenn Komae (3 Harbor Sight Drive RHE) stated his home within a few hundred feet of the proposed project, and he was very concerned with the project. He hoped the Planning Commission would consider the concerns of the Rolling Hills Estates residents, especially in terms of neighborhood compatibility. Justin Chiodo (27601 Palos Verdes Drive East) stated the code requirements are in place for a reason, which he felt was to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. He felt that making an exception in this case may set a precedents for other buildings in the community. He stated this proposal will create two very large structures on two very small lots, and the houses will be much closer to Palos Verdes Drive than other homes in the area. He did not feel the structures were compatible with the neighborhood, and did not feel they would improve the neighborhood. He was concerned with the population density and the quality of living because of it. He stated he was not opposed to someone improving their residence, however that improvement should be done with something that complies with the City's requirements without having to request exceptions. Sharon Yarber referred to Mr. Maupin's home, noting it is a beautiful house but does not fit into the equestrian neighborhood where it is built. She did not think these two homes would fit into the character of the community either. She noted there is proposed one perimeter wall going around both of the properties, along with one entry, one driveway, one shared motor court, and a shared pool. She stated that this is a compound, not two beautiful homes built on two separate lots. In addition, the size of these two homes makes them overwhelming. She felt it was very important to take into consideration the views of the immediate and surrounding properties, whether in Rancho Palos Verdes or Rolling Hills Estates. She noted this is the very first property in Rancho Palos Verdes on Palos Verdes Drive East, and is accessed through Rolling Hills Estates. She reiterated that this property is in an equestrian district and it would be nice to see ranch style homes with more land. Dallas Taft stated he would like to give a viewpoint and opinion of one who does not live in this neighborhood but has driven by the properties for decades. He stated that when Mr. Maupin's home was built, he felt the home looked good and increases the value of the neighborhood. When seeing two more houses proposed that were designed by the same architect his reaction is they will look good and will also increase the value of the neighborhood. He realized that there was an issue with the lot dimension, but being an engineer he also knew that often times a minor compromise yields a much better solution. Robert Schachter (in rebuttal) stated that one of the reasons they are here tonight is try to get some input and guidance they can take back to staff in regards to the 90 foot issue. Commissioner Bradley stated he has some grave concerns about this project. He noted that without the lot split the Commission would be looking at a residence of almost 15,000 square feet on a single lot to replace the existing residence. He stated this would far Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 7 F-47 outpace anything else in the neighborhood. As it is proposed, one would be looking at three structures next to each other that would be the three largest structures in the neighborhood. He noted the new structures are built to the minimum setback and is very high density. He stated he would be looking for something that is half the size on a single lot, let along split onto a double lot. He also acknowledged the fact that these lots are in the Equestrian District and this new proposal would not have any type of accommodations for large animals, which is getting further and further away from the rural type of feel. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he is less troubled by the 90 foot width than he is by the neighborhood compatibility and the size of this home as opposed to the size of the neighboring homes. He felt that if the architect and owner can address the issue of size and gain the support of the neighborhood, the project may come before the Planning Commission and be approved. Commissioner James stated the Planning Commission is not here to grant applications to people who are really nice people and perhaps deny some for people who are not such nice people. Instead the Commission is here to try to balance the rights of an individual to do what they would like to do with their property with the needs and desires of the greater community. He stated there are zoning rules as well as the ability for the community to have input into what individuals can do on their property. He stated there are very firm ordinances and rules, and noted there is a rule that a lot must be 90 feet in width. He did not think it was the Commission's job to say this is really close and maybe the rule should be bent without being able to make the necessary findings to approve a Variance. He referred to the comment that these two houses appear to be a compound, and wondered if when one or both of the houses are sold the types of problems that it will create. He stated the Patels have had the opportunity to work with the Planning Department to find something that was acceptable, and having found no support for the project from the Planning Department, it appears the applicant thought to bring it to the Commission for review. He stated he was not in favor of the project as currently presented and was not inclined to suggest to the Patels what could be done to make this a better project. He felt that the applicant needs to work with staff to find a solution that would work and be within the code parameters. Commissioner Nelson agreed with the comments of Commissioners Bradley and James. He noted he had problems with the bulk and mass, problems with the Q District, problems with the compound appearance, and in particular the problem with having only twenty feet between the homes. Commissioner Leon applauded the applicant for stating his willingness to work with staff to redesign the project. He expressed his concerns with the bulk and mass of the current design, which plays into neighborhood compatibility. He noted that the surrounding houses are single -story, ranch style houses, with the exception of the next-door neighbor and a few mansion—like homes on fairly large lots. He recommended that, if this project comes back to the Commission, that there be two individual houses so that it not look in any way like a single structure or a compound. He felt the privacy issue with the neighbors should be addressed, and that a compatible size would be more in the neighborhood of Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 8 I• • 4,000 square feet. He discussed his disappointment in losing a one acre lot in this Q District. However, he felt that if the requirements are all met to subdivide the lot, the owner has the right to do so. He therefore supported staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated the bulk and mass of the project was of a concern to him. He stated that, even though this lot borders Rolling Hills Estates, he felt that neighborhood means neighborhood and the Commission needs to listen to the concerns of the neighbors in Rolling Hills Estates. He did not think that looking at the second story and seeing one massive wall was a good thing for the neighbors, and that some type of articulation was needed. He was also a bit surprised at the low amount of grading proposed for two such large houses. He agreed that the two homes together look a bit like a compound, and felt that two houses with independent characters would make more sense. Finally, he noted that in looking at the grading plans there were some walls that were ten foot walls, but only called out as eight foot walls on the plans, and asked the architect to ensure the future plans are accurate. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the staff recommendation to continue the public hearing to September 27, 2016 to allow the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Director Mihranian noted that the configuration of the lots may change, as well as the design of the homes, and asked if the Commission would like to see a new silhouette placed at the site to reflect these changes. He also asked, in light of the comments made by the Commission, if the applicant felt they would be prepared to present the new information at the September 27th meeting. Tim Racisz stated he did not know how much time he would need until he has met with staff and the owners make a decision on how they want to proceed with the project. Director Mihranian suggested continuing the public hearing to September 27th, and if need be, the item can be continued at that time. Vice Chairman Cruikshank felt that a new silhouette was needed, especially if the changes are fairly significant. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend his motion to add that a new silhouette be placed at the site to reflect the revised design of the homes, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Bradley felt that if the project is going to be redesigned, and a new silhouette erected, that a new notice to the neighborhood should be sent out so that all of the neighbors know when this project will be coming back to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 9 F-49 Director Mihranian responded that if the silhouette does change staff can issue a courtesy notice to the neighbors that the silhouette has been changed to reflect the current project and that it's scheduled to be heard on September 27tH Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend the motion to have staff issue a courtesy notice to the neighbors regarding the silhouette and the continued hearing date, seconded by Commissioner Leon. The motion was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Bradley dissenting. Commissioner James noted that before this public hearing he visited the project site and looked at it from all angles involved. All of the Commissioners indicated they had been to the site. 8 Vice Chairman Cruikshank not d that earlier in the meeting a speaker discussed the continuing issues with Cal W er, and he requested staff prepare a staff report on the activities and issues with th neighborhood at the Cal Water site. Director Mihranian resp7fded that staff can prepare a status update for the September 1311 agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was/adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2016 Page 10 F-50 September 27, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes F-51 Director Mihranian also provided the Commission with an update on the Elkmont Canyon project, and reported that the development application is currqfitly incomplete and when deemed complete it will be considered by the Planning Co ission. Director Mihranian reported on a house fire on Calle Pess uenos, and discussed how staff is working with the Peninsula Verde HOA to ad border issues between the residential neighborhood and Green Hills. Commissioner Emenhiser requested staff Council meeting on the minor modification viewing the video the Commission directed the Mayor considering, scheduling a joi t Planning Commission. The Comm iss' n October 11 th meeting. NTS F pla the video from the September 6th City ode amendment initiation request. After tall to coordinate with the City Manager and meeting between the City Council and the requested staff to provide an update at the Matt Martin stated he was eporting another CUP violation at Green Hills. He showed photos of a wrought iron to and fence that Green Hills has recently constructed in what he felt was an easeme CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of September 13, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. The minutes were approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Leon abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitor Plan, a subdivision for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658. A Variance, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 and ZON2016-00120): 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Director Mihranian presented the staff report, giving a brief background on the project and the previous public hearing with the Planning Commission. He explained the applicant and the architect have not yet finalized the revised plans, and therefore staff is recommending the Planning Commission continue this public hearing to a date uncertain. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 2 F-52 Commissioner Bradley stated he has a real concern with splitting a lot, then going with a zero lot line building, and asked staff how this is reconciled when looking at neighborhood compatibility. Director Mihranian stated that there are two separate issues, the zoning and the density issue and the architectural and aesthetics issue. In regards to the density, a lot split is a discretionary application before the Planning Commission and the Commission needs to analyze the minimum zoning standards for the neighborhood. He stated there are findings that the Commission must be able to make in order to approve a lot split. Separate from this issue are the structures and neighborhood compatibility issues. When there is an application before the Commission with both the lot splits and the houses combined, that is when the Commission can look at both issues together. He noted that the appearance of the two homes on the two lots appeared to be a concern of the Commission at the last public hearing, and staff has been meeting with the applicant and their architect to address concerns. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Leon asked what was to stop an applicant from bringing a lot split before the Commission for approval, then a few months later submitting one house for approval, and a few months after that submitting another. He noted that in this way the Commission would not see these two houses side by side to see the cumulative affect the houses would have on the neighborhood. Director Mihranian answered that it was conceivable that a lot split could be processed separately from the development applications. Once the lot split was approved the lots could be sold to two different owners and noted that there was no way for the City to require that the development of those two lots occur at the same time. He stated that staff can inform the Commission at the time of the lot split that the lots may be sold off individually for development. He added that each lot would be subject to the neighborhood compatibility findings. Commissioner Bradley asked if there was anything in the Code that could be made clearer that in a lot split, such as this, there is some type of cap that future developers would know that large house may not necessarily be allowed. Director Mihranian explained that when a lot split is before the Commission the Commission has the ability to put conditions on the tentative parcel map that establish caps, such as minimum setbacks on each of the lots or maximum structure sizes. That would address their concerns. The motion to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain was approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 3 F-53 Public Comments F-54 Octavio Silva From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 12:37 PM To: Octavio Silva Cc: Irving Anaya; jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com; Ara Mihranian; smhvaleri@cox.net; amcdougalll@yahoo.com; Elias Sassoon; Sean Larvenz Subject: Re: 27581 PVDE Hi Octavio, Thank you for the surprisingly prompt reply and thorough clarification of the Application. The spirit of the Q Zone and the Trails Network Plan have been considered. Depending on which way the lot is to be split, at least the eastern side will have trail access from the trail which is on the western side of PV Dr. East in Rolling Hills Estates. Best regards, Sunshine 310-377-8761 In a message dated 10/31/2017 10:49:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, OctavioS@rpvca.gov writes: Hello Sunshine, Sorry about the delayed response, i was in and out of the office yesterday. The Municipal Code provides certain incentives for properties within the Equestrian Overlay Zone that meet certain development standards and voluntarily set aside an 800 sq. ft. of area on the property for the future Keeping or maintaining of large domestic animals. The incentives include lot coverage allowances (i.e. ability to exceed the maximum lot coverage permitted in the underlying zoning). The plans for the proposed project at 27581 PVDE, do not depict an 800 sq. ft. area, which the applicant would like to set aside for the future keeping of animals. In regards to your question about the proximity of the project site to trails in the CTP, the City's GIS identifies the nearest trails as the Palos Verdes Loop Trail, Palos Verdes Drive Trail and the Radial and Connector Trails. I've attached a GIS photo for your reference. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 310-544-5234. Thank you, Octavio Silva From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:34 PM F-55 To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Irving Anaya <ianaya@rpvca.gov>; jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; smhvaleri@cox.net; amcdougalll@yahoo.com; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Sean Larvenz <SeanL@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 27581 PVDE Hi Octavio, Thank you for answering my question more questions. Exactly what does a Zone? I rather thought it meant more, Since the subject property is in a "Q Zone", I have City Planner say are "benefits" to being in this Q shall we say, Code Enforcement restrictions. One of the objectives of the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) is to preserve, enhance and provide off-road access to properties within the Q Zones. RPV people have tried to come up with a Building Code which will preserve the opportunity for horsekeeping even when the current property owners are not interested in this activity. RH and RHE have such codes. So far, RPV doesn't. It is just a "nitch zoning" sort of conundrum which the Planning Department is supposed to negotiate without being "demanding". So, which trails in the CTP come near this property? If you would send me a map which shows this property and the properties within 500 feet, I can help you with that. SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 In a message dated 10/26/2017 1:29:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, OctavioS@rpvca.gov writes: Hello Sunshine, My name is Octavio Silva and I am an Associate Planner with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am writing in response to your recent phone inquiry regarding the project site at 27581 PVDE. The project site is located within the City's Equestrian Overlay District. The applicant has been made aware of the Equestrian Overlay District benefits, however, the applicant is not pursuing any equestrian uses as part of the requested applications. F-56 If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 310-544-5234. Thank you, Octavio Silva F-57 Octavio Silva From: cicoriae@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 8:48 AM To: Octavio Silva Subject: 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East (Subdivision) Dear Planner Silva, Regarding the proposed subdivision, height variation and grading permit for 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East, it looks like more of the same that we saw with the Chen's lot nearby: disregard of the semi -rural character of this section of Rancho Palos Verdes motivated by a landowner who wants a mcmansion, or two. Each time these types of projects are approved, we who bought here for the rural feel of this community lose. Each time a mcmansion is built, the next mcmansion is more "compatible".. Had we wanted to live in an enclave of mcmansions, we'd have bought in another area. No, this project is not compatible with our neighborhood. Eva Cicoria 28981 Palos Verdes Drive East F-58 November 19, 2017 Mr. Octavio Silva Associate Planner Via email: octavios@rpvca.gov RE: 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Dear Mr. Silva, The proposed project at 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East is located directly below our home, which is located at 27895 Palos Verdes Drive East. We again appreciate you passing along this letter to the Planning Commission so our thoughts and concerns are considered. We remain steadfastly opposed to the proposed plans in which flag models show two very large structures will replace the existing single structure on the subject property. First, the project size of the combined structures remains out of character with other structures in the area. In fact, we fear that if completed, it will appear to be a fortress or worse, "mega -mansion," greeting those entering our neighborhood. When one reviews guidelines found on the City's website for home renovation, it seems clear that properties in this neighborhood were not intended to include projects like this. The City's guidelines specifically state that homeowners should propose styles and sizes that are similar and/or complimentary to surrounding structures (emphasis intended). The size, scope, footprint, expected dwelling density, and potential resulting traffic is out of place and inconsistent with surrounding properties. Second, obstruction of neighboring property views appears not to have been adequately resolved. We can see that the new plan attempts to deal with this issue. However, we contend it falls short of preserving the uninhibited views to which long-standing residents are entitled. The height of the forward -most structure is imposing and will likely be an eyesore from PV Drive East as well as from Harbor Sight. Since the property is elevated, we wonder why the revised project did not propose digging into the existing land so that the roof lines would be lower. Regardless, putting two enormous homes on one property is objectionable. The image of such a large, looming structure will be imposing and inconsistent. We have all heard and read about opposition to such structures in the news. We believe arguments against are well founded! If the project is permitted to go forward, tension in the neighborhood is likely to be palpable. Other nearby neighborhoods could and have accommodated this type of structure. Here, however, it would be completely out of place. Allowing a structure of this sort to be created in a community of "ranchos" and/or "estates" is unintended for the area. We continue to respectfully request that owners of 27581 PV Dr. East acknowledge the right of established surrounding property owners to retain and enjoy their neighborhood without this unwelcome disruption. The city's website states that city officials will use their published guidelines to make a final determination to approve or disapprove a project. Given that the overall character of the proposed project does not fit in the community, will be an eye -sore, and will create community tension, we respectfully request that any project of this scale be denied once and for all. Thank you for your serious consideration our concerns and those of other likeminded community members. Sincerely, Howard. B. and Gretchen B. Lees 27895 Palos Verdes Drive East 626.278.2468 213.308.4218 F-59 Octavio Silva From: Justin Chiodo <justinchiodo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 1:49 AM To: Octavio Silva Subject: 27581 Palos Verdes Dr. East Mr. Silva, Thank you for the information about the proposed project happening next to my home. On one hand I think that as home owners we should be able to modify and update our homes over time to fit our changing needs. However, in this case the proposal is so massive it would negatively impact the surrounding neighbors and community as a whole. The proposed height variation, and additional construction to the property at 27581 Palos Verdes Dr. East fall well outside of the normal needs for residential expansion. It is unrealistic to say anyone needs to expand their residence from 2800sgft to over 11,000sgft. I understand there are 9 Criteria you use to evaluate these proposals in Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e) of the RPV Development Code. I can not speak for all of the 9 criteria, but there is clear concern with items 4,5,6,& 8. 4. The proposed structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impair -rent of a view. I understand the proposal has been modified to fix some of the earlier concerns with lot width, but now creates new ones. The flag and frame example of the revisions to the 27581 PVDE proposal now place one of the residences much closer to the street than previous. The structure's massive height which is over 20ft is more visible from the road and surrounding residences. There must be a better way to position this residence so that it is less of an impairment to surrounding view. Certainly the overall height could be reduced and a single story residence could be built instead. 5. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. The structure closest to the road causes view impairment at my property and surrounding properties. Furthermore the new proposal would actually block more view for surrounding homes as it places one of the new residences closer to the street than previously proposed. 6. The proposed structure, when considered exclusive of foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. Same as 5. there is view impairment at my property and surrounding properties. 8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The proposed structures at 27581 are significantly incompatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The area is characterized single family homes, most less than 3,500sgft. I think we need to think deeply about the precedent approval of such a project would set in building density per lot area. The Palos Verdes area is such a wonderful place, it is a lush, green, and natural equestrian community. It would be a shame to shift the unique and desirable natural feel of the area to that of zero lot line multi family homes with more pavement than green space. I understand the proposing party has made revisions to their plan, but unfortunately they have created new problems. I hate to object to someones wishes, but the proposal is such a half-baked attempt to get approval and does not address the core issues of the neighbors and RPV Planning Commission. Is its clear there are much better options that could be pursued which would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and F-60 would fit within the existing development code. I implore the Planning Commission to request a more realistic proposal that is cohesive with the neighborhood. Thank you - Justin F-61 Proposed Plans F-62 t--bJ cc 0 w NIL '8 LLI o (D ISVA 3A(NCI S:1(1219A SOlVd < w 0 AZ 0 20' (S i N) ML 14FO C- N) �OU > 0- 5w X g 16 0 < 2 ul �4 0 0 -Y2 H 5 XG S 2 N GH 0 H 0 M uffl';� HR LY t t--bJ O" PAVEMENTOGE OF PAVE TRDKEN PAVE 420 1 EXISTING NT � I Cl,SRB NGRAILROAD TIE 425 — I.A cuRe TOREMAIN NEW CONCRETE STAIRS ON GRADE \ \ HIGH (MAX. 3'GGAR 2'-6" HIGH WALL W/ " /4 - \ \ O GARDEN WALL �4 HIGH FENCE NEW DRIVEWAY ` PR 20.0 * 1 \ APR ul •� � s —'_I \ I l CORD. CURBS Ic \ �KING 45; c�0 x NEW 2,ST0 d'ESI. ENCE 1 \ C� MAA. RI \ UPPER FSH. FL 458.00 LOWER f]NSH. FL 427 00 29.2' F� � O i , � m p � BASEMENT FNFl 41] 00 1p 21.8'.1 $ \ � a i �COVERED I 1 \ NENICONETE PATIO`t 1 ,STAT SON GRADE / BB — EXIST NG R SIDENCE NEW 8 MAX. HT. �� \ - \ / TOB DEM LISHED 1 _ \ ,e WALL 6' RETAININ L \ \ m 4 1L- — _ EXST. ADJACENT PIPES ROPER TY M EXISTING 16 kV OVERHEAD \ \ �� "ey, '' 35 L ELECTRIC POWER �] \\xor,E _� 4��_—`J _ EXISTI G DRIVEWAY TO / TRANSMISSION LINES \ \ _ ;' BE REI, OVED \ / 45 ' `50 NEW 5HIGH POOL \ BARRICADE \ EXISTING GARDEN WALL j TO BE DEMOLISHED SITE PLAN I TIMOTHY S_ RACISZ L I 2 RESIDENCES PATEL FAMILY SITE PLAN .BEET L dE 0-A1.2 F-64 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN TIMOTHY S. RAOISZ. A�chitrci 2 RESIDENCES PATEL FAMILY LOT 1 RESIDENCE BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN F-65 1-A2.1 xvs i:'a na. .__LQ'.. PATIO I ---------------- �( �r UPPER FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR 1,700 SF j UPPER FLOOR 2.015 SF j 3,715 SF 1 GARAGE 775 SF 4,49D SF TIMOTHY S. RACISZ 2 RESIDENCES PATEL FAMILY LOT 1 RESIDENCE FLOOR PLANS F-66 -A2.2 ----------------------------- vl III Tl LIVING ROOM 3 -GAR GARAGE I- I r I Fo YER s 'SHOES o 0 L LOWER FLOOR PLAN UPPER FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR 1,700 SF j UPPER FLOOR 2.015 SF j 3,715 SF 1 GARAGE 775 SF 4,49D SF TIMOTHY S. RACISZ 2 RESIDENCES PATEL FAMILY LOT 1 RESIDENCE FLOOR PLANS F-66 -A2.2 NORTH ELEVATION 1-1 llIII ELEVATIONS - -T I -A3.1 1, F-67 TIMOTHY S.RACISZ 2 RESIDENCES PATEL FAMILY LOT I RESIDENCE EAVI DETAIL ELEVATIONS - -T I -A3.1 1, F-67 H —A9—_—• t-- - not W WaW 1 _Wixz W }- I H —A9—_—• t-- - not TIMOTHY S RAOI'SZ� N IT, IIIIIII 2 RESIDENCES - - - - PATEL PAMIIY LI'll I III Al OT 2 RESIDENCE I { I I i STORAGE a I { �- -- -, r,»HALL11.v.. mrHwirHwieo.iH,. BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN I mnnu>ue�E uecxink "n>r,y�se uvu .He i BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN I .arxw�ANo�oav�rwirH..vr i. r,._A�.wrr� �...A~. ocr za zm; I roe ma -n, s_ E.11LIr-A2.1 31IIET .1 F-69 ATH3 � POWO F—T B__ 0 X RECREATION ROOM UNDRY xno � T BEDROOM nia-P ucw. HALL S�4/ I LOWER FLOOR PLAN TIMOTHY S. RACISL Arannecl 2 RESIDENCES PATEL FAMILY LOT 2 RESIDENCE LOWER FLOOR 1,633 SF UPPER FLOOR 2.280 SF 3,913 SF j F xnwn �x_ov,eu�.�m.i._ ss ooues " LOWER FLOOR PLAN 2-A2.2 J F-70 �------------------, "1 , - -- i ATH3 � POWO F—T B__ 0 X RECREATION ROOM UNDRY xno � T BEDROOM nia-P ucw. HALL S�4/ I LOWER FLOOR PLAN TIMOTHY S. RACISL Arannecl 2 RESIDENCES PATEL FAMILY LOT 2 RESIDENCE LOWER FLOOR 1,633 SF UPPER FLOOR 2.280 SF 3,913 SF j F xnwn �x_ov,eu�.�m.i._ ss ooues " LOWER FLOOR PLAN 2-A2.2 J F-70 UPPER FLOOR PLAN SIA -E 11-1 ROOF PLAN TIMOTHY S. RACISZ Aichilect 2 RESIDENCES PATEL FAMILY Er 2-A2.3 F-71 EAST (STREET) ELEVATION SCALE 11, l -S NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 111 -14 r BT MCITHY S. RACISZ I Lr 2 RESIDENCES 6. PATEL FAMILY LOT RESIDENCE 7 -J EAVE DETAIL ELEVATIONS -76' 'C Tl `2 SIEET AM -EET IF F-72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — WEST ELEVATION —E lln — m SOUTH ELEVATION '.VLH .......... . IT— �l T1111 —11:11 1-1 A TIMOTHY S. RACISZ i Ie 2 RESIDENCES PATEFAMILY LOT RESIDENCE EAVE DETAIL ELEVATIONS SHEET — I 11 SHEET A3*2 q F-73 ;CALE: 1"=20' VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72658 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR SUBDIVISION PURPOSES PETHARBOR SIGHT DRIVE SLOPEANALYSIS' �EOFS' ¢ ILI a SID XITmGLIT,3-,5cn i EEXIENGA.c. AVERAGE Gs .. AVERAGE CPE OF PROPOGE PARCEL Z=Ia.S^,. `SED DRrvEyyAY 9ASEOC1 rvIGIEST DIISTING GRACE LCwesT IIISTNG GAUGE 1 LENGT. O'E)ORAOE— STREET SECTION EASEMENTS IEE STEDET SECTION AS S.EETx OE GRAIN -BN OEVIE PVa TO PACIFIC TELEPHONE ANC TELEGRAP.COMPANY PDSEISIS—I IELOW ANI RI -TI INCIDENTAL T.LIETO, As GELINTED IN AoOCDN+ 1 RD 6AN. 3 E;`e 1.FF TIITO A.D PEES TIE•,YEGTERLYEFEETANDTIESIITE EETERLYSFEETGEG,NDLAID EST OFDR TAE P�cOGEa 15NOwn 9Elo'r"n'iIG RIGID+"S INCIIENTAL THERETI. AS GRANTEDW ADDGUMENT: ��— \ 10.0 _010IN 11:115011 112, cE 11 IT IFTICIAL FIFIRos OF„ GTN NND Al ICT I. T.EEO„T.EA..TERLYI IDE. 11111 LAID � C\-`�( F / NCO 11 'ILI 116 1 LY el , ,CO W.FIETY 11 RO PD. <a nBT 00 3 D ELFI \\ OF \ \ J W ACCESS NOTE: ; SHEET 1 OF I SHEET SCALE: 1"=20' SURVEY AND TOPOGRAPHY EASEMENTS (D —IEIT(S, TO PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COIAANI 1- — —POSES, —.N EILO-1 AND RNGITI INCIDENTAL THERETO. AS l—TEO IN A DOCUMENT; Oa. FVC OP� FFI—L �AILILEtTTO) TD —THER1 CILIF.O0110N, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR SUBDIVISION PURPOSES A-- D N ENGINEERS IL . LVQ 51E E2I HARBOR SIGHT DRIVE TORRANCE, CA 90503 31 42-943 (0) 5 11U`IV' El IG IN INDE11.11 CIkEITIIN IN OON11111A.It PRTH THE 'EQIIREIEI-.1 All INI 11 T11-1 'IDIIAIAIL EA111—T$ 11 ILI— All ItIO'AN PER 11E TI ILI 11-L. ILI O�TIol,1111.1.1�1 ...... ... . ELEV.-.I� AS I—DEIIAL THERETO. Al GRANTED INA IIILLIEIT: I IEE TA I Pl. AO IL11.1 ONI'IIII�1111AII I I L I I— R'O R� 1A.1 IA. Al All—l: 1111111-11ONLY—E_ N'O'_EES U) 9 w 0 < OF THE0 uj > O�- IL [If 0 1A 0 C() ILL A--_ — — — '0\ LL vo 0 A III, 11"ILl '�-\ --- — 11 -- > 5.0' M U) < 11� t/1 All 711A �pAAVvvAVA'\VA\\ A. RETS A,Ck 5.0' r4 'K y L I ya N ta'N T' 'I L E'l 4 1 P I6 1' Ly E. 24215 1 0WN1.1 ELE.111HER NI'L P TEL 1629 W. PACIFIC COAST HWY HARBOR C�'Y. CA 9Wl� (3101995-5165 "L I SES -5 65 0 N 6a PAGE RI RANCHO PALOS VEROS, CA 90275 APN 15--C ZONING RESODENTIA1 SINGLE - LOT > 20.000 SO. FT. (RS-2) LEGEND V' F-75 ,,�„�� 1181ux3 9Nl(MJ9 H9nou •d�o� BUIJOGUIBu3 u011og 131Vd IVAN 899ZL ON dVW 130NVd 3A11H1N31 `JNI1S3/\ w o .3 H k1V / // f - yw i m \ 1; 1111 Q�Q� 111 0 �III1111111 'l \ v m o c _ ■a4 - iia a ti�y`ayu 0 m o c _ ■a4 5 5k 5 S` A 14-1 i i1 11 1 �++� I r � PcvEarr � m m —1 y_ mE '^ n \ i PovEP�4 unE z o ZZ 111-1 \� � GHnUE BREa� c�FftiY lrvE G or e_nP ° w REDMIN/ RYW- NOT FOR CONIST[ LK-MON VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 72658 NITAL PATEL ROUGH GRADING EKH'BiT1-1 111,11-1—El— c Ec27E % Bolton11,1;.— A11--er�ng Corp. n 310-325-5580 suj»SUJBU3 Ualloo SIS),IVNV 3dOIS 4 .... . ......... . . -dA.0 131Vd IVIIN 4 'je P% os I CA SH —Z 4d -NoEnz % NOISIAI08ns E3 .d,wj Bus u *slog 131Vd IVIIN V3UV 101 snonOlINOO V fi -diao OuiAl;e U� PI l;U3, U, Oil3 0,on canis A901OUCIAH EMUSIX3 131Vd IVIIN 999FL ON dVA 130UVd 3AUV1N31 DNUS3A F-81 P ROCK RIP RA_' _ — - HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS PER LGs ANGLLLs wH RAV DESIGN Hydny�Arehsb: Fmm IAC umy Hytlrebpy Manual, _ '----w MANUk IFNGTH OF RIF RAP, Panmebr: Z..Kc� SOA Type 002 p�.� + r t L - N X [I./ X U/ (tl-2. t)'+ B] So -Yr Stwm „ 1 33 X 1.7 k 4.3/ (1.33^2:5) - 1 =3.2W - ---` Er' •,. ' R] t0 iEEI G w r1 CE =0.88 ��- �1!- (xz. a'•i» o-+�as> UYSIRLAM WIU'll - 3 X U- 4 ILLI S UUWNSIRLPM WUIn=USL43U 17 �fFT, C m _ - + J.. J. .� \, ,.+'•F �/ WITH LXIIINU VLLUCIIY 4 /,/SI I/S USE STONE D. = 10" AIM AND O',VERI RUNCN TOWARDS AND UNIU HAWS VLRULS UHIVI, EAST. • t m O C m' m n C W ` R L' � / ..,✓+..'� / / / \fit / / / `I m u- f-- 7 /• /.' / / \ \`\ / ./'� (E)2 - b PVC -HAIL H:Up 0.5 X = 0.5 X GE - 0.5 k 4.3 CFS - 2.15 S NU THE EXISTING PIPE SLOPES FO FOL OO W iHF I OFOF THF FXI'�TING dp l` / �' _-_ 1 _ .,__ EDGE OF P/,VEUENPFENT, 5 = 2.8% �� / ✓ V � °� j, 8 P1D 0.011. G 2.15 AN = CFS, ANDS 2 B%, YOP NO NORM Al FOLI.OWINC f1FPTh OFF 0.49 FT AND A EXITING VELOCITY OF 7.35 LU EL - \F OFFSITE WATFRSIiFD AREA: 1,5 ACRES (ON-SITE - U,)5 ACRE, OFF-SITE _ 0.42 AIRF N n QF- 0.69 X 3.] x 1.5 = 4.3 CFS r' O Z a t a o w \� 2 '� f 1 ?/�, .....__ /y •!t ..............�_._. _._._......_�.._.._-._.. EXISTING CATCH BASIN -PICTURE BELOW (FOR WATERSHEO UPHILL) w Q H- u W A r u �o zz a r a s. > x • E F ^� - , e„ , t. V F-81 § .,,,,t"•= .� uuvY•yez-uati � i<Ea,,a;3�y3nia,.ea.awtl - c:aas •a in.+°� iE.».a >aav3n s°,re o+ax,u al:ng anuany auuiyiN VE85Z ♦m axxO S3ptl3n SO,ve iiiE ♦>vS 3nn>>,anan>a,tle lsitE $ �I fu4iiun50ue Eui.aeuiB°31uq •dzoo Bu�zs�ul8um uof�oa NVId 1N3Wd013ABO 13VdaVI M01 131Hd IVlIN „ 899ZL ON dVW 13021Vd 3AUV1N31 SNUS3h A y _ R 4 {�R9{4�{zit='3=Sm{} zg 3s �� {A^ H11 za a {' g' -y. ,wn = s .Es €s wRRfRf:rA° n -0 v44�4gtgm {a 1111111111-aax} E,i $Y �p}i s m&#�fP w � ms'B 7Y s {i{ �„ U�vNrmi >s g - w � i 3 5 3 �s •'!{'� � ! 1 3 p�-.."3 .m-E-�".,45'ur 3o� 'f - g ' � if a § z�z��& p g c ,?. g C $jg 3 5 'f m �-�` !` '� t !:_ :Pad �¢3,:d a SAa 'q S19 .14■- ¢ 1 z -v >3 eE{ 3_� i;i lsai �g{at¢} a!i I �. ?'� 333 aaas�• s s P M'�5+��' S!laH,414901 y-sa£t{s il:�3-self s A 8W-- 01 pp t 9 i$= s-t;,�s}'gs7sera$}a?.R}a�aazai 9� / / iso s33g. A jua �° 3ewy Z� Air ofT 6� ll s as a6 # s EROS � = ya "1` ��\ $ • Epi - �95L PPLO :,�• "" bi% ;%z �yE f B}➢i ° iii/ / / • X4121 1' � � m " � d O 'moi c.5� �iLt- wn >ti° NRy s E. V OI ✓\\\\ /y // U \ / 7 \/ n '7 O$g�19 JS SS_'u _ 2 a ;� Jim York (property owner) informed the Commission that he is supportive of Staff's recommendation and that he would also like to modify the required Point View Master Use Plan Annual Review to an as -needed basis or at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. Director Mihranian responded that the Mr. York's request should be considered separately as a revision to the Conditional Use Permit. Vice Chairman James closed the public hearing and stated that Mr. York's modification request should be discussed with City Staff and explored for the next annual review. VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BRADLEY, TO ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-42; THEREBY ADOPTING ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) AND AMENDING CONDITION NO. 72 REGARDING NOISE MONITORING AT THE EVENT GARDEN, ON A VOTE OF 4-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER LEON RECUSED. 11. SITE PLAN REVIEW, HEIGHT VARIANCE, GRADING PERMIT: (CASE NO. SUB2014- 00003, ZON2014-00273, ZON2016-00120) 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East / Patel (OS) Vice Chairman James announced Agenda Item No. 11 and asked for a Staff Report. Director Mihranian informed the Commission that there was late correspondence provided before the meeting related to the proposed project, and that there were 13 public speakers for this item. Associate Planner Silva provided a brief presentation with a power point presentation describing the proposed project and the changes made to the design of the lot split and the size and scale of the proposed two homes based on the direction given to the Applicants last year when this item was first considered by the Commission. He noted that pursuant to CEQA, a mitigated negative declaration was no longer warranted because a variance deviating from the City's minimum lot width requirement was no longer requested. He described the various applications being considered by the Planning Commission and how the required findings can be made citing that the proposed project does not result in a significant view impairment to neighboring properties in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes based on the City's View Ordinance and that Staff believes the proposed residences are compatible to the surrounding homes in the City. Discussion ensued between Staff and the Commission on the project revisions that occurred based on direction given to the Applicants last year. Vice Chairman James opened the public hearing. Tim Racisz (Applicant) addressed the Commission and stated that the proposed project was revised to address the Commission's concerns with the initial project submittal. Mr. Racisz Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 10 G-1 informed the Commission that the project was modified to meet the City's subdivision ordinance requirements and the City's neighborhood compatibility ordinance. Mr. Racisz requested that his time for public comments be reserved, so as to be given the opportunity later to address project concerns expressed by the public. Vice Chairman James agreed with Mr. Racist's request. Robert Schachter informed the Commission that he is a Planning Commissioner with the City of Rolling Hills Estates and is also the Attorney representing the property owners. Mr. Schachter requested that his time for public comments be reserved, so as to be given the opportunity later to address project concerns expressed by the public. Vice Chairman James agreed with Mr. Schachter's request. Neal Patel (property owner) informed the Commission that his architect and he worked closely with City Staff over the course of a year to prepare a revised project that addressed the Commission's initial project concerns. He requested that in light of the changes made that the Commission approve his project. Barbara Paior informed the Commission that she lives at 6 Harbor Sight Drive and expressed concerns with the proposed project as it relates to view impacts and compatibility with other homes in the area. Vince Vassallo provided late correspondence that was distributed to the Commission for review. Mr. Vassallo stated that he lives at 6 Harbor Sight Drive and has concerns with the proposed project expressing concerns with the scope of the proposed subdivision, bulk and mass of the residential structures, view impacts related to project height, compatibility and project grading, as well as driveway access into the project site off Palos Verdes Drive East. Req Lowell stated that he and his wife live at 4 Harbor Sight Drive and expressed concerns with the proposed project with respect to privacy impacts and compatibility with other homes in the area. Gretchen Lees informed the Commission that she lives at 27895 Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes, which is west of the project site and expressed concerns with the proposed project with respect to view impacts, height, bulk and mass, as well as compatibility. Commissioner Tomblin asked Staff if a site visit to Mrs. Lees' property had been conducted as part of the project review process. Associate Planner Silva informed the Commission that he requested access to conduct a site visit to the property owner, but as of the preparation of the Staff Report, the property owner did not respond to his request and as a result a site visit was not conducted by City Staff. He explained how Staff's assessed potential view impacts based on topographic conditions in the area and the review of aerial photographs. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 11 G-2 Bob Bennett informed the Commission that he lives at 16 Deerhill Drive in the City of Rolling Hills Estates (RHE), and was there as a representative to the local Home Owners Association. He stated that he had previously submitted written correspondence regarding the proposed project, which outlines his concerns regarding the proposed project. In addition, Mr. Bennett indicated that his written correspondence provided simulation photographs of the proposed project's impact on views from homes in RHE. Mr. Bennett also expressed concerns with the project's bulk and mass and compatibility with other homes in the area. Doug Maupin stated that he lives at 27591 PVDE, which is located to the south of the project site, and that he is in favor of the revised project. Justin Chiodo informed the Commission that he lives at 27601 PVDE in Rancho Palos Verdes, and that while he supports the development of individual properties, he has concerns with the proposed project. Mr. Chiodo stated that while the Applicants' revised project may have addressed some of the Commission's and public's concerns, it has also created additional concerns with view impacts, structure sizes, bulk and mass, height and compatibility with the immediate neighborhood. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Leon and Mr. Chiodo as it relates to his viewing area. Michael Brunskill indicated that he lives at 7 Harbor Sight and that he has concerns with the proposed project. Brad Brunskill stated that he lives at 7 Harbor Sight and expressed concerns with the project. Sandy Walia stated that she is a Ranch Palos Verdes resident and that she supports the proposed project, as the project would increase property values in the area. Mr. Schachter returned to the podium in order to address the public concerns regarding the project. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Schacter about the development process in the City of Rolling Hills Estates as it relates to structure size and height, and asked to identify the size and number of stories of homes that are currently being approved by their Planning Commission. Mr. Schacter stated that typical sizes vary and that homes range from single story to two stories in height. Commissioner Tomblin asked about the proposed driveway and hardscape areas in front of the residential structures. Mr. Racisz informed the Commission that the driveway areas were being designed to accommodate Fire Department access to the project site. Commissioner Tomblin also asked about how access to Lot No. 2 will be provided. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 12 G-3 Associate Planner Silva informed the Commission that access to the rear lot would be provided through a driveway access easement that would be recorded on the properties as part of the proposed subdivision. Commissioner Tomblin asked about the possibility of constructing a gate over the driveway area, whereby the Fire Department's access to the site would be restricted. Director Mihranian informed the Commission that as part of the Conditions of Approval, a condition can be added to the proposed project that would require any new gates to conform to Fire Department access requirements. He added that there is a condition requiring compliance with the Fire Department's requirements and that he did not think a gate would be allowed. Commissioner Bradley indicated that he had serious concerns with the project regarding the structure size and compatibility with neighboring properties, and stated the project appeared to be out of place and that he was not supportive of the project. Commissioner Leon stated that he was understanding of the public's concerns with respect to the project, noting that it appears that the Applicants submitted a project that incorporated the Commission's direction as compared to the original project. Commissioner Nelson agreed with Commissioner Leon's comments. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he understood the public's concerns but that the Applicants revised the project to comply with Commission's direction. COMMISSIONER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEON, TO ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-43; CONDITIONALLY APPROVING, WITH A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION NO. 31, VESTING PARCEL MAP NO. 72658, HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING 43,677 SQUARE FOOT LOT AT 27581 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS AND TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON EACH LOT. LOT NO. 1 WILL BE 20,649 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND IMPROVED WITH A 5,927 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH 1,528 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING. LOT NO. 2 WILL BE 23,029 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND IMPROVED WITH A 5,311 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH 1,766 CUBIC YARDS OF RELATED GRADING (CASE NOS. SUB2014-0003, ZON2014-00273 & ZON2016-00120), ON A VOTE OF 4-1 WITH COMMISSIONER BRADLEY DISSENTING. 12. APPEAL OF DIRECTOR -APPROVED GRADING PERMIT: (CASE NO. ZON2017- 00324) 27501 Western Avenue / Green Hills (SK) Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 13 G-4