Loading...
CC SR 20150804 01 - Knoll View Permit and Site Plan Review AppealCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PUBLIC HEARING Date: August 4, 2015 Subject: 2nd Appeal of a Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope Permit & Site Plan Review for a New Residence on a Vacant Property Subject Property: Vacant Lot (APN 7566-006-018) 1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 2. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Knight (Continued from May 5, 2015) 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Senior Planner Mikhail 4. Public Testimony: Applicant: Mr. Amir Esfahani Appellant: Stanley Dennis Legal Representative for appellant 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Council Deliberation: 8. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Knight 9. Council Action: Public Hearing Cover Page CITY OF tiRANCHO PALOS VERDES Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, AICP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO_ 4ti DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015 �9►2TR' SUBJECT: KNOLL VIEW - 2ND APPEAL OF A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT, EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A NEW RESIDENCE ON A VACANT PROPERTY (CASE NO. ZON2011-00280). ��,D REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY M _ N A G E R V" " Project Planner: Leza Mikhail, Senior PlanneI� RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2015-_, granting an appeal and conditionally approving a modified Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00280), for the construction of a new 4,620 square foot, two-story residence with 466 cubic yards of associated grading on a vacant lot (APN 7566-006-018) located on Knoll View Dr. Quasi -Judicial Decision This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to support approval of a development application. The specific findings of fact are listed and discussed in this Staff Report. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2011, an application was submitted by Mr. Amir Esfahani requesting approval of a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review for the construction of a new, 6,105 sq. ft., 2 -story single-family residence and garage on an existing vacant lot. The project included grading to create a new driveway, motor court, and front yard area, along with accessory structures in the rear yard area. After multiple revisions were made to the project, the application was deemed complete on November 4, 2013. 1 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahani August 4, 2015 On December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing and found that the proposed residence was not compatible with the neighborhood based on the proposed structure's bulk and mass. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the proposed grading for the new driveway, motor court and courtyard was excessive. After the applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension, which established a new decision deadline of April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on this item to February 11, 2014, to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project and address the concerns raised by Staff and the Planning Commission at the public hearing (provided to the Council in the May 5, 2015 Staff Report). On February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised project, which involved a reduction in the square footage of the residence from 5,597 square feet to 5,203 square feet, reduction in the amount of overall grading from 712 cubic yards to 466 cubic yards, increased side and rear yard setbacks, and the processing of an Extreme Slope Permit for a deck to extend over an extreme slope in the front yard of the project site. While the applicant attempted to address some of the concerns raised at the December 10th Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission found that the proposed project continued to result in excessive grading and was not compatible with the neighborhood. As such, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07, denying, without prejudice, the requested application, on a 3 to 1 vote with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, and Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin, and Chairman Emenhiser absent (provided to the Council in the May 5, 2015 Staff Report). On February 26, 2014, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, requesting another opportunity to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns. Given the applicant's desire to further redesign the project, the City Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration (provided to the Council in the May 5, 2015 Staff Report). In July and October 2014, revised plans (and updated geology) were submitted to the City which proposed to reduce the overall size of the project, provide additional setbacks and articulation to the two-story structure, and eliminate the direct access driveway from Knoll View Dr., thereby providing access to the property via an existing private driveway easement adjacent to the north property line of the subject property. The application was deemed complete on October 30, 2014, and on November 6, 2014, a 30 -day public notice for the revised project was sent to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 6, 2014. On December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the merits of the further -revised project and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014- 35 on a 5-1 vote, with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting and Commissioner Gerstner absent. On January 2, 2015, Mr. Stanley Denis, an attorney representing the property owners located at 29848 Knollview Dr. ("Appellant"), submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the abovementioned revised project on the subject 2 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani August 4, 2015 vacant lot. The Appellant's representative asserts a legal opinion that the City's Planning Commission erroneously approved the revised project on December 9, 2014, predicated upon allowing the Applicant access to Lot 7 (the subject vacant lot) via a private driveway on the Appellant's property (Lot 6). The Appellant does not believe that the Applicant has a legal right/authority to use a driveway along the north side of the vacant lot for ingress/egress purposes. On April 2, 2015, a 30 -day public notice for the Appeal hearing before the City Council was sent to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News on April 2, 2015. Aside from the initial appeal letter Staff did not receive any additional comment letters as a result of the public notice. On May 5, 2015, the City Council considered the merits of the Appeal, which was based on the fact that the Appellant (neighbors) did not believe that the Applicant had rights to use a shared driveway that had an easement for ingress/egress over it. After hearing all of the public testimony, the City Council agreed that the issue related to the ingress/egress easement was civil in nature, and therefore the City Council could not opine on the on Appellant's or Applicant's position on the matter. Nonetheless, the City Council did note that they could approve a project that provided a direct access driveway and associated grading, thereby eliminating the need to use the easement in question, if the Applicant was amenable to such a design. After discussing potential modifications to the design of the residence and access to the property with the Applicant, the City Council continued the public hearing to August 4, 2015. The Council is being asked this evening to approve the proposed residence with a modified driveway that now provides direct access to the subject lot via Knoll View Drive rather than the adjacent private driveway easement. DISCUSSION A summary of the Planning Commission's decision and the Appellant's appeal can be found in the May 5, 2015 City Council Staff Report (attached). Within the May 5, 2015 report, the City Council can also find a chart that summarizes the changes between the original proposed project presented to the Planning Commission on December 10, 2013, the revised project denied by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2104, and the further redesigned project approved by the Planning Commission (December 9, 2014) and presented to the City Council on May 5, 2015. Since the May 5, 2015 City Council meeting, pursuant to Council direction, the Applicant has redesigned the project so that access to the proposed residence is taken directly from Knollview Drive as opposed to a private driveway easement shared by the Appellant (neighbor). By relocating the driveway onto the subject property, the Applicant increased the overall grading on the property from 253 cubic yards of grading to 466 cubic yards of grading. In addition to relocating the driveway, at the request of Mayor Pro -Tem Brooks to slightly reduce the scale of the residence, the Applicant lowered the highest roof ridgeline 9 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahan! August 4, 2015 by 3 inches (from 105.5' to 105.25') and reduced the overall square footage by 250 square feet (from 4,870 square feet to 4,620 square feet). Based on the recent revisions, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project can be approved. However, in order for the Council to approve the project, the following findings for a Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope Permit and Site Plan Review must be affirmed. A complete analysis of the required aforementioned findings can be found in the attached Resolution. If the City Council believes that all of the findings to approve the revised project can now be made, a Resolution to approve the project is attached to this report. Below is a list of the required findings for each of the requested planning applications. Height Variation Findings 1. The applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process established by the city. 2. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does 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. 3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. 4. The area of a proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or an addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height, as defined in Section 17.02.040(8) of the Development Code, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. 5. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is determined not to be significant, as described in Finding No. 4, the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view. 6. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height, and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. 7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements. 8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. 9. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. L.i Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahani August 4, 2015 Grading Findings The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17.96 of the Municipal Code. 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8), is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from pre -construction (existing grade). 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. 4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography. 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Chapter 17.02. 6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillsides areas. 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements, which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. 8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. 9. Grading conforms to the standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill, and height of retaining walls. 10. The director may grant a grading permit for development in excess of that permissible under subsection (E)(9) of this section upon finding that: a. The criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) of this section are satisfied, b. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of this section; C. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) of this section will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity; and d. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) of this section will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property; e. Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given to only the applicant/Any interested person may appeal the director's decision 5 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahani August 4, 2015 to the planning commission and the planning commission decision to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures of this title. Extreme Slope Permit Findings The director may grand an extreme slope permit only upon finding: a. That the site cannot reasonable accommodate the structure except on an extreme slope; b. That the permit will result in no significant adverse effect on neighboring properties. Factors to be considered in making this finding shall include: view impairment, visual impact, slope instability, increased runoff and other adverse impacts found to be significant; C. That the structures will not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of occupants of abutting residences; d. That any disturbance of the slope will be insignificant, and e. That the permit is consistent with the general plan, coastal specific plan or any other applicable plan. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Given the expansive record for this project, which was previously presented to the City Council in full at its May 5, 2015 meeting, Staff has not included the entire record as part of the attachments. Attached to this report are the Draft Resolution, should the City Council approve the modified project, the May 5, 2015 City Council Minutes, and the May 5, 2015 City Council Staff Report for reference. All attachments to the May 5, 2015 Staff Report are not included in this report, but can be found on the City's website under the May 5, 2015 City Council Agenda should the City Council or members of the public wish to review the entire record. CONCLUSION Given that the Applicant has modified the design of the residence by removing the access driveway from easement on the neighbor's property to providing access from Knoll View Drive, thereby eliminating the issues raised by the Appellant in their appeal letter, Staff recommends that the City Council conditionally approve the project as modified as reflected in the attached resolution. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the City Council to consider: 1) Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00280) as designed, and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next City Council meeting with an appropriate Resolution; or, no Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani August 4, 2015 ZON2011-00280) as designed, and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next City Council meeting with an appropriate Resolution; or, 2) Hear public testimony this evening, identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a subsequent City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT The Appellant has paid the required appeal fees as established by Resolution of the City Council. If the revised project is approved by the Council this evening, the Appellant was successful in the appeal because the Applicant redesigned the project by relocating the driveway onto the subject property. Thus, the Appellant will receive a full refund of their appeal fee and all costs associated with processing the appeal will be borne by the City's General Fund. ATTACHMENTS • Draft Resolution No. 2015-_ (Page 8) • May 5, 2015 City Council Minutes (Page 23) • May 5, 2015 City Council Staff Report and Attachments (Page 28) • Project Plans (under separate cover) 7 Resolution No. 2015 -XX Knoll 'View Drive Appeal August 4, 2015 City Council Meeting RESOLUTION NO. 2015- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GRANTING AN APPEAL AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A MODIFIED HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT, EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,620SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE, 466 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING, A RETAINING WALLS WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 5'-0" ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY, AN ENTRY DECK THAT EXTENDS A MAXIMUM OF 6'-0" OVER AN EXTREME SLOPE, AND OTHER ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT (APN 7566-006-018) (CASE NO. ZON2011-00280) WHEREAS, on April 21, 1965, Tract Map 27142 was recorded with the County of Los Angeles, thereby creating the subject property along with the other properties within the Miraleste Hills community; and, WHEREAS, on October 10, 2011, the applicant submitted a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application to the Community Development Department requesting approval of a new 6,105 square foot, two-story residence and garage on an existing vacant lot, including 762 cubic yards of grading; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2011, the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, after the submittal of additional information and revised plans reducing the scale of the project and grading, the applicant submitted the last remaining information on October 29, 2013 and November 1, 2013; and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, Staff deemed the project complete; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. At that time, the Planning Commission found that the proposed project was not compatible with the immediate neighborhood based on the bulk and mass of the proposed structure. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the proposed grading for the new driveway/motor court and courtyard was excessive. After the applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension to the Permit Streamlining Act, which established a new decision deadline of April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to February 11, 2014 to allow the applicant the 01 opportunity to redesign the project to address the concerns raised by the Staff and the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised project, which involved a reduction in the square footage of the residence from 5,597 square feet to 5,203 square feet, reduced amount of overall grading from 712 cubic yards to 466 cubic yards, increased side and rear yard setbacks, and the submittal of an Extreme Slope Permit for a deck to extend over an extreme slope in the front yard of project site. While the applicant attempted to address some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission, the proposed project continued to result in excessive grading and was not compatible with the neighborhood. As such, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-07, denying, without prejudice, the application request, on a 3 to 1 vote with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, and Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin, and Chairman Emenhiser absent; and, WHEREAS, On February 26, 2014, the applicant (Amir Esfahani) appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council requesting another opportunity to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns. Given the applicant's desire to further modify the project, the City Council, at its April 16, 2014 meeting, remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration; and, WHEREAS, in July and October 2014, revised plans (including an updated geotechnical report) were submitted to the City further reducing the overall size of the project, providing additional setbacks and articulation to the two-story structure, and eliminating the direct access driveway from Knoll View Dr., thereby providing access to the property via a private driveway easement adjacent to the north property line of the subject property; and, WHEREAS, on October 30, 2014, the revised project was deemed complete for processing; and, WHEREAS, on November 6, 2014, a 30 -day public notice for the revised project was sent to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 6, 2014; and, WHEREAS, On December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission considered the merits of a further -revised project to allow the construction of a 4,870 square foot, two-story residence, 213 cubic yards of grading, an entry deck that extended a maximum of 6'-0" over an extreme slope, and other ancillary site improvements. The revised project also included ingress/egress access over a private driveway easement that traverses two flag lots located behind the subject, vacant property (29844 Knoll View and 29848 Knoll View). Ultimately, the Planning Commission approved the revised project, and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 2 of 14 10 Resolution No. 2014-35 on a 5-1 vote, with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting and Commissioner Gerstner absent; and, WHEREAS, on January 2, 2015, an attorney representing the property owners located at 29848 Knoll View Dr. ("Appellant"), submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the abovementioned, revised project on the subject vacant lot. The Appellant's representative asserted a legal opinion that the City's Planning Commission erroneously approved the revised project on December 9, 2014, predicated upon allowing the Applicant access to Lot 7 (the subject vacant lot) via a private driveway on the Appellant's property (Lot 6). The Appellant did not believe that the Applicant has a legal right/authority to use a driveway along the north side of the vacant lot for ingress/egress purposes. WHEREAS, on April 2, 2015, Staff mailed notices for a City Council appeal hearing to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius from the subject property, providing a 30 -day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the City Council considered the merits of the Appeal, which was based on the fact that the Appellant (neighbors) did not believe that the Applicant had rights to use a shared driveway that had an easement for ingress/egress over it. After hearing all of the public testimony, the City Council agreed that the issue related to the ingress/egress easement was civil in nature, and therefore the City Council could not opine on the on Appellant's or Applicant's position on the matter. Nonetheless, the City Council did note that they could approve a project that provided a direct access driveway and associated grading, thereby eliminating the need to use the easement in question, if the Applicant was amenable to such a design. After discussing potential modifications to the design of the residence and access to the property with the Applicant, the City Council continued the public hearing to August 4, 2015; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. Seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. Seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that ZON2011-00280 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found by the City Council to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303) since the project involves construction of a new residence on a legally subdivided residential lot; and, WHEREAS, on August 4, 2015, the City Council considered the revised project at the continued public hearing and heard and considered all evidence, both written and oral, that was presented. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 3 of 14 11 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 The Appellant's representative has asserted a legal opinion that the City's Planning Commission erroneously approved the subject application/project on December 9, 2014, based on a design that allows access across a private driveway easement. The Appellant believes that the subject property owner (Lot 7) does not have legal access for ingress/egress purposes over their property (Lot 6). While this issue is a civil issue that ultimately would need to be resolved between the two private property owners in a judicial proceeding, during the public hearing process of the appeal, the Applicant agreed to redesign the project so that that driveway would be located entirely on the subject property. Accordingly, the issue raised by the appeal concerning the use of the existing private driveway is now moot. Section 2: The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a Height Variation to allow the construction of a 4,620 square foot two-story residence: A. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process established by the City, and as directed by the Community Development Director, by mailing reduced copies of the project plans and a notice to all landowners within 500 feet of the subject property via registered mail. B. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails), which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as City -designated viewing areas. Specifically, due to the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structure is not visible from a public viewing area or viewing site and will therefore, not impair a view from such public property. C. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject property is located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood, on an existing pad lot, zoned for residential development. The residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Municipal Code. D. The Height Variation is warranted because the portions of the new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, will not significantly impair City -protected views from the viewing areas of neighboring properties. Specifically, properties in the neighborhood which overlook the subject property are at a significantly higher elevation than the pad level of the subject lot, allowing protected viewing areas to continue to have unobstructed views over the proposed new residence and will only block the views of residences or buildings and foliage located down the hillside, which are not protected views under the Municipal Code. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 4 of 14 12 E. The Height Variation is warranted because proposed portions of the new residence that exceed sixteen feet in height are designed to minimize the impairment of a view, as the proposed residence is situated as close to the front of the lot as possible with the current design and at a significantly lower elevation, which allows a better viewing angle over the proposed residence from the upslope neighboring properties. F. The Height Variation is warranted because granting the application would not cause significant cumulative view impairment, as the adjacent parcels located on the same downslope side as the subject parcel have also been constructed with 2 -story residences on a pad level that appears to be at relatively the same elevation as the subject lot, and views from the homes above currently exist over those properties. G. The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements, including the RS -2 zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage, property line setbacks, landscaping, and the required garage size for single-family residences that exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. H. The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed residence, as redesigned, is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Specifically, the applicant has redesigned the project to provide undulating facades and articulation around all sides of the residence. Additionally, the applicant has redesigned the proposed driveway to take access from Knoll View, as opposed to a private driveway easement along the north side of the residence, which is compatible with other residences found along the east side of Knoll View Dr. Furthermore, the proposed project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style and bulk and mass. The proposed lot coverage and setbacks are consistent with those of the surrounding properties. The applicant has redesigned the project to include low-lying planters and arches to break up the overall appearance of the two-story fagade as seen from the properties to the north and south. Additionally, the north -facing second - story facade is broken up by accommodating covered outdoor living area that is not surrounded by walls, thereby reducing the overall bulk and mass of the structure. The Height Variation is warranted because the portion of the structure above 16 feet will not result in unreasonable infringement of privacy of the abutting residences. Specifically, the adjacent parcel's privacy will not be impacted any differently than what is already experienced, as each of the properties can be seen from Knoll View Drive over the currently vacant subject lot and the view onto the adjacent lots from proposed 2nd_ story windows, balconies and decks will not be different from what is currently observed from the street. Section 3: The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the Grading Permit to allow 466 cubic yards of cut and fill A. The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The subject property is located in a residential area designated by Resolution No. 2015 - Page 5 of 14 13 the City's Zoning Map as a RS -2 Zoning District. According to the City's General Plan and Development Code, a single family residence is classified as a permitted primary use in the RS Zoning District. As redesigned, the applicant is proposing a total of 466 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the construction of the new residence and ancillary site improvements. The fill is proposed to accommodate the new driveway/motor court, and will shift the natural grade of the property along the south side of the motor court. The remaining grading accommodates a new pool, a level rear yard and a landing for pedestrians. Given the steep slopes that descend from the private driveway to the proposed garage, the retaining walls and fill to accommodate access to the driveway will not exceed 5'-0" in height and will not create negative visual impacts to neighboring properties. B. The proposed grading/retaining wall would not cause any significant/adverse visual impacts to other neighboring properties as the proposed retaining wall would not be easily visible from other properties as it will face the interior of the lot. Furthermore, a small portion of the wall that may be slightly visible from the right-of-way will be screened by the landscaping in a planter. C. The grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The existing vacant lot was originally created as part of Tract 27142, with an extreme slope between the street and flat portion of the pad lot. Other neighboring lots east of the Knoll View Dr. exhibit similar topographic configurations, The applicant has proposed grading that accommodates access from the street, as opposed to a shared private driveway. As a result, a limited amount of grading is proposed to accommodate the new driveway and motor court and access to the garage. Given that a portion of this motor court extends into the existing slope, and would otherwise result in a large retaining wall, the applicant has redirected the contours of the property in a small portion of the property just south of the motor court. The modified contours will be blended to follow the existing slope and the finished contours are reasonably natural as seen from Knoll View Drive. D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. A majority of the proposed project will be located on the existing flat pad of the property with some minor grading in the rear yard to accommodate a new pool and flat, useable rear yard. The majority of the proposed grading would be located along the northwestern side of the new residence and would accommodate the construction of a motor court and driveway access directly from the street. Given that the property descends over 20'-0" from the street to the flat pad of the property, the applicant is proposing to raise the finished floor of the garage and fill beneath the motor court to accommodate a raised driveway that accesses the garage. The applicant will be maintaining a majority of the extreme slope along the west side of the property, similar to other properties along the east side of Knoll View Dr. Additionally, in order to reduce potential impacts of a raised driveway, the applicant has blended the existing site topography with a man-made slope along the south side of the Resolution No. 2015 - Page 6 of 14 14 motor court. E. The grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The redesigned project addresses past concerns related to bulk and mass by providing undulating facades and additional articulation to the first and second floor facades. Additionally, the applicant has redesigned the project to address the grading concerns related to the construction of the new residence by eliminating the access to the property via a private driveway, and is now providing access directly from Knoll View. This modified access accommodates a design that is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. F. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. The applicant has redesigned the project to provide driveway access from Knoll View Drive. Therefore, as redesigned, the applicant is no longer accessing the property across an easement and is proposing a design that eliminates grading and use of the easement Furthermore, the proposed design is consistent with the character of the hillside properties along Knoll View Drive. G. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property. H. The grading conforms to the City's standards for height of cut and fill, and heights of retaining walls. Specifically, the proposed grading would not occur on a lot that was created prior to 1975; the proposed grading will not significantly alter the contours of the lot, and no finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created. Lastly, the project includes one (1) 5'-0" tall retaining wall located adjacent to the new driveway, and a few garden walls along the north side of the driveway and residence. The City Council makes the "10th Finding" to allow the proposed grading on a slope with a 60% gradient, due to the following facts: 1) As discussed above in paragraphs A through H, the first eight grading criteria that are required to approve a Grading Permit have been met; 2) the request is consistent with the purpose of the Municipal Code; 3) approval of the grading permit will not constitute a special privilege, given that it is consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; 4) departures from the standards of the grading criteria will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other properties in the vicinity. J. A required Notice of Decision will be given to the applicant and to all owners of property located adjacent to the subject property. Specifically, a Notice of Decision will be given to owners of the following properties people: 1) 29840 Knoll View Dr., 2) 29844 Knoll View Dr., 3) 29848 Knoll View Dr., 4) 29866 Knoll View Dr., 5) 2957 Knoll View Dr., and 29845 Knoll View Dr. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 7 of 14 15 Section 4: The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the Extreme Slope Permit to allow a portion of an entry deck in the front yard to extend a maximum of 6 -feet beyond the toe of an extreme slope.- B. lope: B. The Extreme Slope Permit can be supported because the site cannot reasonably accommodate the structure except on an extreme slope because a large portion of the front yard is comprised of an extreme slope and there is a limited amount of useable front yard area to provide access from the street to the residence. Specifically, the subject property is situated where the pad level of the property is located approximately 20 feet below the street level, with an extreme slope descending from the street to the pad portion of the lot. In order to provide access to the front of the residence, which has been designed with the main public rooms on the upper level, the proposed walkway bridge over a portion of the extreme slope allows a walkway and usable front yard structure that would connect to steps carved into the slope and up to the street. Due to the design of the project, which is located at the toe of the extreme slope, any manner of providing access to the front of the property would involve going over the extreme slope. The site cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed walkway bridge without encroaching over the extreme slope. C. The Extreme Slope Permit will result in no significant adverse effect on neighboring properties in terms of view impairment, visual impact, slope instability, increased runoff and other adverse impacts. The proposed walkway bridge/deck will be located at the front of the residence, between the proposed new structure and the street. As the extreme slope descends down to the residence, resulting in a valley -like space between the structure and the public right-of-way, there will be no adverse effects to neighboring properties. The sunken location of the deck will not be in any viewing area, although it can be seen from the street, similar to other deck structures found on adjacent properties, to provide access to the front of the residence. Furthermore, to construct the deck, the property owner will be required to obtain all building permits that comply with geological and building code requirements, which will address any potential slope stability and/or drainage issues in conjunction with approval of the new residence. C. The Extreme Slope Permit can be supported because the walkway bridge/deck is located at the front of the property and a lower elevation from the street. Due to its location adjacent to the public right-of-way, at a lower elevation from the street, and located 27 feet from the adjacent property to the south, the City Council finds that the deck would not result in any greater infringement of privacy than can be observed from the street. Therefore, the City Council determines that this finding can be made D. The Extreme Slope Permit can be made because any disturbance to the slope will be insignificant. As designed, there would be four pillars supporting the deck, of which only two will be located on the slope. The deck would then connect to a retaining wall where fill is proposed for a small flat area which would then fill the gap between where the deck ends and the stairs are built into the slope. While there will be a 91 square foot area to provide the graded platform for the deck and slope, any disturbance caused by the Resolution No. 2015 - Page 8 of 14 16 proposed deck cantilevering over the slope will be insignificant. K. The Extreme Slope Permit can be granted because the General Plan designates the subject parcel for Residential 1-2 DU/acre, and the proposed deck is consistent with construction for residential development. The purpose of the Residential, 1-2 DU/acre land use designation in the General Plan is to allow for the development of low- to moderate -density residential neighborhoods, including the types of accessory structures normally associated with single-family residences, such as the proposed deck. In addition, Urban Environment Policy No. 3 calls upon the City to "encourage and assistin the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design." The extreme slope at the front of the residence restricts access to the front of the residence so that the use of a cantilevered deck is both reasonable and consistent with the immediate neighborhood. Also, the subject parcel is not located within the City's Coastal Zone, nor is it subject to any overlay control district standards. Section 5: With regard to the Site Plan Review, the proposed pool, spa, mechanical equipment and site fencing would comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and the maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS -2 zone. Further, as noted in the Height Variation findings above, the addition will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Section 6: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of August 2015. Attest: City Clerk State of California } County of Los Angeles )ss City or Rancho Palos Verdes } Mayor Resolution No. 2015 - Page 9 of 14 17 I, Carla Morreale, the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2015 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 4, 2015. City Clerk Resolution No. 2015 - Page 10 of 14 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, ESP, SPR) (APN 7566-006-018.) General Conditions: Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 7. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 11 of 14 19 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 10. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non- conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non- conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped APPROVED plans. 11. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 12. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 13. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (39.3% proposed). 14. The approved additions shall maintain setbacks as depicted on the APPROVED plans for both the first and second floor additions. BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 15. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 16. A minimum 2 -car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space being Resolution No. 2015 - Page 12 of 14 20 individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9' in width and 20' in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance (3 -car garage proposed). 17. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. 18. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 19. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 20. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the project's compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 and the City Municipal Code requirements regarding wood -burning devices. Project Specific Conditions: 21. This approval is for a 4,620 square -foot, 2 -story single-family residence, which includes a 674 square -foot 3 -car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. 22. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 105.25'. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the Finished Grade Elevation at 79.5'. 23. The proposed chimney may project a maximum of 2' into any required setback, and shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 24. All existing foliage located on the subject property along the north side property line, adjacent to the private driveway easement, shall be maintained in a thriving manner. If any of the existing trees on either property are damaged or removed during construction, the applicant shall provide new trees to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 13 of 14 21 25. In addition to the new residence, grading and retaining walls, the Site Plan Review for this project shall allow the construction of a new pool, covered patio and pool equipment. 26. Said approvals include an Extreme Slope Permit that shall allow the construction of a deck to extend over the top of an extreme slope. Said deck shall not extend more than 6'-0" beyond the extreme slope. 27. This project includes two retaining walls located adjacent to the proposed new driveway that shall not exceed a height of 5'-0". 28. Prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit, if applicable, the applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route from the Public Works Department. 29. The proposed project includes a total of 466 cubic yards of grading, as outlined below: a) 106 cubic yards of excavation b) 360 cubic yards of fill C) 34 cubic yards of import Resolution No. 2015 - Page 14 of 14 22 May 5, 2015 city Council Minutes Knoll view Drive Appeal August 4, 2015 City Council Meeting 23 The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brooks, Campbell, Duhovic, Misetich, and Mayor Knight NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2nd Appeal of a Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope Permit and Site Plan Review for a New Residence on a Vacant Property (Case No. ZON2011- 00280); Location - Vacant Lot on Knoll View Drive (APN 7566-006-018) City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published, written protests included with the staff report and late correspondence which was distributed prior to the meeting, and there were five requests to speak regarding this item. Mayor Knight declared the public hearing open. Councilman Campbell stated that on the advice of the City Attorney, he would be recused from discussion of this item, and left the dais at 7:50 P.M. Councilman Misetich disclosed that he lives on Knoll View Drive, but further than 500 feet from this project with no line of site to the location; therefore, it was determined that he would be able to participate in this item. City Attorney Lynch added that since there would be no foreseeable financial impact on the value of Councilman Misetich's property he would be able to participate in this item. In response to a Council question, City Attorney Lynch explained that this public hearing was a de novo appeal hearing where the Council will consider the findings of the Planning Commission and decide if they concur with the findings or not in order to make a determination on the project. Associate Planner Mikhail provided a detailed staff report and PowerPoint presentation regarding this item. Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff Stanley Denis, Attorney for the Appellant (Sorenson family), provided handouts including deeds for the three lots in the surrounding area and preliminary title report, and referenced other documents provided in the staff report. He opined that there were errors in the interpretation of some of the legal documents that have been presented to date and that there is not substantial evidence that Lot 7 has the right to use the flag pole easement that Lot 5 and Lot 6 currently utilize. He noted that if there were an City Council Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 8 of 15 24 easement, it would be to use the driveway only for ingress and egress only and not to make any modifications to that driveway for access to Lot 7. He concluded that the title company, which specializes in title reports and easements, should be consulted regarding the documentation regarding the easement. Discussion continued among Council Members, City Attorney Lynch, Mr. Denis, and staff regarding the easement issue. RECESS AND RECONVENE: Mayor Knight called a recess from 8:33 P.M. to 8:42 P.M. Don Sorenson, stated that he has concerns regarding the following: design and size of the proposed project for Lot 7; safety issues due to the steepness of driveway; difficulty in traversing the driveway due to the steep grade; the possibility that the proposed project may require the reconfiguration of the driveway; and, a proposed 6 -foot tall chain link fence around the property, which is not compatible with the neighborhood. Kim Sorenson, stated she had concerns regarding the size of the home based on the size of the lot, although the size of the home has been reduced from the original design; safety of the driveway due to the steep slope; a possible desire by the applicants to reconfigure the upper portion of the lot to a flat pad to allow better access to the property, which would cause undulations in the driveway; and, privacy concerns due to the wall of windows and balcony on the back of the proposed project. Lavon Sorenson, stated that she has concerns regarding the large size of the proposed project, impact on the privacy of their home, and the appeal process. Amir Esfahani, owner/applicant, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated he and his architect have been working on the design of his proposed home since 2011 and he was surprised by the issues regarding the easement. He noted he was present to answer any questions the Council may have. He added that the concerns regarding the steep condition of the driveway exist for all who currently utilize the driveway for the two existing homes at the location. Ben Cauthen, architect, Cauthen Design, stated that the original proposed project was proposed to have a separate driveway but the Planning Commission denied it due to the grading that would be required on a very steep portion of the property to create the new driveway. He noted he was trying to work with the neighbors; the owners intended to keep the trees to provide privacy for the neighbors and the applicant; and any drainage design would be at the direction of the City with the use of certified engineers. He noted the easement issue is a legal matter to be settled between the property owners, and he hoped the Council could proceed with the approval of the project. Discussion ensued among Council Members, the architect, and staff. City Council Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 9 of 15 25 Mr. Denis, in rebuttal, stated that his clients would prefer direct access of the driveway to the proposed project from the street. Amir Esfahani, in rebuttal, stated that he would prefer the original design with an independent driveway for all involved and for the safety of the neighbors. Mayor Knight declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Pro Tem Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to continue the public hearing to August 4, 2015, and to direct staff to work with the applicant regarding the redesign of the project to provide: direct access to the home via a driveway at the front of the property; reduction of the bulk and mass of the home by approximately 500 square feet; and, reduction of the height of the home, with the redesigned project to be brought back to the City Council for consideration. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brooks, Duhovic, and Misetich NOES: Mayor Knight ABSENT: Campbell (recused) Councilman Campbell returned to the dais at 9:43 P.M. Abalone Cove Parking Fees and Automated Pay Station; Location - 5970 Palos Verdes Drive South [Continued from April 21, 2015] City Clerk Morreale reported that this public hearing was continued from April 21, 2015, late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting, and there were no requests to speak regarding this item. Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff. Mayor Knight declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Misetich moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Brooks, to waive the staff report and approve staff recommendation to: 1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2015-35, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, APPROVING A COASTAL PERMIT (ZON2015-00169) MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT FEE INCREASE AND AUTOMATED PARKING PAY MACHINE AT ABALONE COVE SHORELINE PARK; and, 2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2015-36, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, INCREASING THE PUBLIC PARKING FEE STRUCTURE AT ABALONE COVE SHORELINE PARK FROM THE CURRENT $5 FEE TO THE FOLLOWING FEE STRUCTURE: FREE FOR THE FIRST 30 MINUTES, City Council Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 10 of 15 26 $6 FOR 30 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS, AND $12 FOR MORE THAN 2 HOURS, NO CHARGE FOR SENIOR AND DISABLED VISITORS, AND APPROVING THE USE OF AN AUTOMATED PARKING PAY MACHINE. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brooks, Duhovic, Misetich, and Mayor Knight NOES: Campbell ABSENT: None REORDER OF THE AGENDA: Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff regarding the reordering of the remaining items on the agenda for consideration. Mayor Pro Tem Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to reorder the agenda to consider only the Budget Menu Exercise on May 19, 2015; with Item 4 (Letters in Opposition to Proposed LA -RIGS Monopole at Upper Point Vicente), Item 5 (City Water Conservation Proposals), and Item 6 (Agreement with Prosum for Information Technology Services) to be considered at this time. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brooks, Campbell, Duhovic, Misetich, and Mayor Knight NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR BUSINESS: Appointments to the Emergency Preparedness Committee This item was continued to the May 19, 2015 City Council Meeting. Letters in Opposition to Proposed LA -RIGS Monopole at Upper Point Vicente City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting and there were four requests to speak regarding this item. Senior Administrative Analyst Fox provided a staff report and PowerPoint presentation regarding this item. Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff. Councilman Duhovic moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to consider new business after the 10:15 P.M. City Council Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 11 of 15 27 May 5, 2015 City Council Staff Report With Attachments Knoll View Drive Appeal August 4, 2015 City council Meeting W CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, AICP, COMMUN Y EV OPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 5, 2015 SUBJECT: 2ND APPEAL OF A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT, EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A NEW RESIDENCE ON A VACANT PROPERTY (CASE NO. ZON2011- 00280). REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MAN GER Project Planner: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner (�yo RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2015-_, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00280), for the construction of a 4,870 square foot, two-story residence and 213 cubic yards of associated grading on a vacant lot (APN 7566-006-018) located on Knoll View Dr. Quasi -Judicial Decision This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to support approval of a development application. The specific findings of fact are listed and discussed in this Staff Report. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2011, an application was submitted by Mr. Amir Esfahani requesting approval of a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review forthe construction of a new 2 -story single-family residence and garage on an existing vacant lot. The project included grading for the creation of a new driveway, motor court, and front yard area, along with accessory structures in the rear yard area. After multiple revisions were made to the project, the application was deemed complete on November 4, 2013. 29 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 On December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing and found that the proposed residence was not compatible with the neighborhood based on the proposed structure's bulk and mass. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the proposed grading for the new driveway, motor court and courtyard was excessive. After the applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension, which established a new decision deadline of April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on this item to February 11, 2014, to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project and address the concerns raised by Staff and the Planning Commission at the public hearing (see attached minutes). On February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised project, which involved a reduction in the square footage of the residence from 5,597 square feet to 5,203 square feet, reduction in the amount of overall grading from 712 cubic yards to 466 cubic yards, increased side and rear yard setbacks, and the processing of an Extreme Slope Permit for a deck to extend over an extreme slope in the front yard of the project site. While the applicant attempted to address some of the concerns raised at the December 10th Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission found that the proposed project continued to result in excessive grading and was not compatible with the neighborhood. As such, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07, denying, without prejudice, the requested application, on a 3 to 1 vote with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, and Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin, and Chairman Emenhiser absent (see attached Resolution and Minutes). On February 26, 2014, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, requesting another opportunity to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns. Given the applicant's desire to further redesign the project, the City Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration (see attached Minutes). In July and October 2014, revised plans (and updated geology) were submitted to the City which proposed to reduce the overall size of the project, provide additional setbacks and articulation to the two-story structure, and eliminate the direct access driveway from Knoll View Dr., thereby providing access to the property via an existing private driveway easement adjacent to the north property line of the subject property. The application was deemed complete on October 30, 2014, and on November 6, 2014, a 30 -day public notice for the revised project was sent to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 6, 2014. On December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the merits of the further -revised project and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014- 35 (attached) on a 5-1 vote, with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting and Commissioner Gerstner absent. On January 2, 2015, Mr. Stanley Denis, an attorney representing the property owners located at 29848 Knollview Dr. ("Appellant"), submitted a timely appeal of the Planning 30 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 Commission's decision to approve the abovementioned, revised project on the subject vacant lot. The Appellant's representative asserts a legal opinion that the City's Planning Commission erroneously approved the revised project on December 9, 2014, predicated upon allowing the Applicant access to Lot 7 (the subject vacant lot) via a private driveway on the Appellant's property (Lot 6). The Appellant does not believe that the Applicant has a legal right/authority to use a driveway along the north side of the vacant lot for ingress/egress purposes (see attachment). On April 2, 2015, a 30 -day public notice for the Appeal hearing before the City Council was sent to 78 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site. Additionally, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News on April 2, 2015. Aside from the initial appeal letter (attached) Staff did not receive any additional comment letters as a result of the public notice. DISCUSSION A complete description of the revised project that was approved by the Planning Commission, and Staff's Analysis from December 9, 2014, can be found in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (December 9, 2014) and P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35. Additionally, the Planning Commission Staff Reports and Minutes from the all previous public hearings are also attached. A summary of the Planning Commission's decision and the Appellant's appeal are described below. Planning Commission's Decision to Approve the Project on December 9, 2014 When initially presented to the Planning Commission at its December 10, 2013 and February 11, 2014 public hearings, Staff and the Planning Commission were unable to make Neighborhood Compatibility Finding No. 8 for the Applicant's request to construct a new residence on the subject vacant lot. The Planning Commission noted that the proposed residence appeared large as seen from the adjacent properties, as well as when driving along Knoll View Drive, and commented that more revisions were needed to adequately reduce the overall appearance of the structure's perceived bulk and mass. Additionally, the Planning Commission initially felt that the proposed project did not meet six (6) of the nine (9) required grading criterion for approval of a Grading Permit. This was largely due to the fact that the City and Property Owner agreed that they have the legal right to access the subject property via a dedicated access easement over an existing driveway that is part of the two abutting properties (29844 and 29848 Knoll View Drive), making the grading for the proposed driveway unnecessary. These concerns resulted in a project denial that is memorialized in P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07 (attached). Given these concerns, and the City Council's direction on an appeal to remand the project back to the Planning Commission, the applicant further -redesigned the project to eliminate the driveway access from Knoll View, and provide access to the property via the existing driveway easement to the north of the property. As a result, the overall cubic yardage of grading was reduced from 466 cubic yards to 213 cubic yards of total grading (see Table 1 31 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 for grading revisions). The following chart summarizes the changes between the original proposed project presented to the Planning Commission on December 10, 2013, the revised project denied by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2014, and the current further -revised project approved by the Planning Commission (December 9, 2014 shown in bold): Table 1 — Comparison of the Original and Revised Projects for Lot 7 Structure Size Original Project (12-10-14) Denied Project (2-11-14) Change Further - Revised and Approved Project (12-9-14) Change Upper Level 3,077 SF 3,030 SF -47 SF 2,972 SF -58 SF Lower Level 1,837 SF 1,524 SF -313 SF 1,249 SF -275 SF Garage 683 SF 649 SF -34 SF 649 SF 0 Total 5,597 SF 5,203 SF -394 SF 4,870 -333 SF Lot Coverage 40% 39.6% -0.4% 38.7% -0.9% Grading Cut 162 CY 106 CY -56 CY 27 CY -79 CY Fill 600 CY 360 CY -240 CY 186 CY -174 CY Total 762 CY 466 CY -296 CY 213 CY -253 CY Setbacks Front 35'-10" 35'-10" 0 35'-10" 0 North Side 7'-6" 8'-0" + 6" 8'-0" 0 South Side 5'-0" 6-6" + 1'4' 8'-6" + 2'-0" Rear 40'-4" 46'-5" + 6'-1" 46'-5" 0 The Planning Commission's approval of the project on December 9, 2014 was because the revised project reduces the size of the residence, as well as slightly increases the structure setbacks. The rear fagade of the residence is now slightly setback behind the rear fagade of the neighboring residence to the south, thereby maintaining a rear yard setback that is similar to the rear yard setbacks found on adjacent properties with similar lot configurations. Additionally, the revised structure now includes an abundance of undulating facades to break up the appearance of the two-story structure as seen from the street and surrounding residences. The applicant has further articulated the north and south facades by combining arches and low planters to soften the appearance of the residence as viewed from the closest neighboring properties. Furthermore, the Planning Commission believes that the grading associated with the further -revised project does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot (residential use), and that the grading 32 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 which is proposed to allow access from a private driveway easement minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The revised grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by maintaining the existing slope at the front of the subject property and provided access across the shared, private driveway easement, which is similar to and compatible with ingress/egress access found across other properties in the immediate neighborhood. All of the specific findings for a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Extreme Slope Permit that were required to be made by the Planning Commission in order to approve the proposed project, are listed below. Staff is recommending that that City Council affirm the same findings to approve the proposed project and deny the appeal. Height Variation Findings 1. The applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process established by the city. 2. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a viewfrom public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as city -designated viewing areas. 3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. 4. The area of a proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or an addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height, as defined in Section 17.02.040(B) of the Development Code, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. 5. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is determined not to be significant, as described in Finding No. 4, the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view. 6. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by. (a) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height, and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. 7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements. B. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. 9. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. 33 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahani May 5, 2015 Grading Findings 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17.96 of the Municipal Code. 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(B), is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from pre -construction (existing grade). 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. 4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography. 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Chapter 17.02. 6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillsides areas. 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements, which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. 8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. 9. Grading conforms to the standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill, and height of retaining walls. 10. The director may grant a grading permit for development in excess of that permissible under subsection (E)(9) of this section upon finding that: a. The criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) of this section are satisfied; b. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of this section; C. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) of this section will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity, and d. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) of this section will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property; e. Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given to only the applicant/Any interested person may appeal the director's decision 34 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive - Esfahan! May 5, 2015 to the planning commission and the planning commission decision to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures of this title. Extreme Slope Permit Findings The director may grand an extreme slope permit only upon finding: a. That the site cannot reasonable accommodate the structure except on an extreme slope; b. That the permit will result in no significant adverse effect on neighboring properties. Factors to be considered in making this finding shall include: view impairment, visual impact, slope instability, increased runoff and other adverse impacts found to be significant, C. That the structures will not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of occupants of abutting residences; d. That any disturbance of the slope will be insignificant; and e. That the permit is consistent with the general plan, coastal specific plan orany other applicable plan. Appellant's Grounds for Appeal As noted in the Background Section of this Report, the Appellant's representative has asserted a legal opinion that the City's Planning Commission erroneously approved the subject application/project on December 9, 2014, based on a design that allows access across a private driveway easement across the common driveway that is shared by Lots 5 and 6. The Appellant believes that the subject property owner (Lot 7) does not have legal access for ingress/egress purposes over their property (Lot 6). While this issue is a civil issue that would need to be resolved between the two private property owners, pursuant to an agreement or a judicial decree, the City Attorney has reviewed the legal descriptions and titles of both properties. Based on the City's review of the Preliminary Title Reports prepared for each property (Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Tract No. 27142), the title report for Lot 7 states that there is an easement for ingress and egress to Lot 7 (Applicant's property) over the "flag pole" portions of Lot 6 (Appellant's property) and Lot 5. The Appellant's legal representative has noted that he believes that the description of the easement right to Lot 7 is erroneous as the easement is not depicted on the approved Tract Map recorded on April 21, 1965, and that the Corporation Grant Deed recorded on October 13, 1965 did not convey said easement rights. In reviewing the background of the information provided to the City, it appears that Tract No. 27142 was created by an entity known as J.H. Barton Construction Co., Inc. as a legal subdivision on April 21, 1965. There were no ingress/egress easements depicted on the Tract Map over the "flag pole" portions of several lots within that Tract. This means that there is no easement on the map over portions of Lot 5 or Lot 6, in favor of Lot 7, or in favor of each other. (The only easements reflected on the Tract Map were for utilities, sewers and storm drains.) However, as outlined in Corporation Grant Deed 1205, J.H. Barton Construction Co., Inc. granted "a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over those portions of Lot 6 and 35 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 the southerly 10.00 feet of Lot 5 of Tract No. 27142" to Ms. Anna M. Duffy, purchasing property owner of Lot 7. Additionally, the title report submitted by the Appellant contains Exception 9 in Schedule B of Appellant's Title Report describing an access easement that was conveyed to Joseph H. Barton on November 21, 1953. Thus, while Staff agrees with the Appellant that there is no indication of an easement on the recorded Tract Map, the absence of the easement on the recorded map does not mean that a legal easement could not have been created by the grant deed. Given the background and information presented to the City by both parties, Staff is of the opinion that there is substantial evidence in the record before the City Council (by virtue of the Grant Deed that was recorded in 1965 and the two title reports) demonstrating that the Applicant (property owner of Lot 7) has an easement for ingress/egress over a portion (the driveway) of the Appellant's (property owner of Lot 6) property and over the corresponding portion of Lot 5. As such, Staff disagrees with the Appellant's assertion that the Planning Commission acted erroneously in approving the revised project on December 9, 2014, which included access over the private driveway easements of Lots 5 and 6. It is important to note that the Planning Commission was aware that that the neighbor was contesting the Applicant's legal access over their driveway. Notwithstanding all of the evidence indicating that the Applicant has a legal right to use the neighbor's property for ingress/egress, the Planning Commission added the following condition of approval: 26. Prior to ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, the property owner (applicant) shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, that they have legal access to the subject property from the private driveway easement along the north side property line that is consistent with the driveway design approved by the Planning Commission, including the removal of any trees to allow for said legal access. The City Attorney has revised that language to read as follows: 26. The applicant has provided documentation in the form of a grant deed and title report to the City demonstrating that they have legal access to the subject property from the private driveway easement along the north side property line that is consistent with the driveway design approved by the Planning Commission, including the removal of any trees to allow for said legal access. If the appellant or another affected party files a lawsuit challenging this decision and/or files a lawsuit challenging the right to use the common driveway over lots 5 and 6, the City shall not issue a building or grading permit to the applicant until such litigation is finally resolved or a court order is issued that requires or allows the City to issue the permits. Should the Appellant assert their own civil action against the Applicant, resulting in a judicial decision that reverses the language of the recorded easement or title reports, the Applicant would be required to submit a revised project to the City for review and approval. 36 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 A revised project would need to be submitted to the City before all Planning Entitlements for the subject application (Case No. ZON2011-00280) expire. CONCLUSION Given that the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence indicating that the Planning Commissions acted in error when it approved Case No. ZON2011-00280 for a new two- story residence and grading on a vacant lot, and the Applicant has provided information indicating that they have legal access over a private driveway that accommodates their revised project, Staff recommends that the City Council deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the City Council to consider: 1) Approve the appeal, thereby overturning the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00280), and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next City Council meeting with an appropriate Resolution; or, 2) Hear public testimony this evening, identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a subsequent City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT The Appellant has paid the applicable appeal fees, as established by Resolution of the City Council. If the Appellant is successful in the appeal, and the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project, the Appellant will receive a full refund of their appeal fee. Thus, all costs associated with the processing of the appeal will come from the City's General Fund. ATTACHMENTS • Draft Resolution No. 2015-_ (Denying Appeal) (Page 11) • Letter of Appeal and Appellant's Title Report (Page A-1) • Applicant's Title Report (Page A-20) • P.C. Resolution No. 2014-35 (Page A-42) • P.C. Minutes from December 9, 2014 (Page A-55) • Late Correspondence from December 9, 2014 P.C. Meeting (Page A-62) • P.C. Staff Report from December 9, 2014 (Page A-67) • City Council Minutes from April 16, 2014 (Page A-91) • City Council Staff Report from April 16, 2014 (Page A-93) 37 Case No. ZON2011-00280 (HV, GR, SPR, ESP) Lot 7 on Knoll View Drive — Esfahani May 5, 2015 • Planning Commission Minutes from February 11, 2014 (Page A-100) • P.0 Resolution No. 2014-07 (Denial) (Page A-106) • Planning Commission Staff Report from February 11, 2014 (Page A-111) • Planning Commission Minutes from December 10, 2013 (Page A-133) • Planning Commission Staff Report from December 10, 2013 (Page A-136) • Project Plans