The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_02_18_01_CUP_Revision_Grading_Permit_and_Minor_Exception_PermitCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PUBLIC HEARING Date: February 18, 2014 Subject: Appeal of a Conditional Use Permit Revision, Grading Permit and Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2013-00063) Location: 2902 Vista del Mar 1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic 2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Associate Planner Kim 4. Public Testimony: 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: Appellant: AGA Design Group (representing property owner Jia H. Zhang) Applicant: AGA Design Group (representing property owner Jia H. Zhang) 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Duhovic 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: 1-1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: Project Manager: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY D~_9'PMENT DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 18, 2014 u - APPEAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION, GRADING PERMIT AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2013-00063) FOR 2902 VISTA DEL MAR CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGE~ So Kim, Associate Planner q- RECOMMENDATION As requested by the appellant, remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration without an appeal fee refund. BACKGROUND In February 2007, AGA Design Group, representing property owners Dominic and Kim DiDominicantonio, submitted an application for an amendment to the tract map, a Conditional Use Permit Revision and a Grading Permit to allow the development of a new 11,688ft2 residence (including garage) with 1,988yd3 of related grading on a vacant lot within the Seacliff Hills tract. On October 14, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and felt that the new residence was not compatible with the neighborhood based on the proposed structure size, bulk and mass and questioned the visual impact from Palos Verdes Drive South. As a result, the applicant revised the project by eliminating the below-grade basement area in its entirety, thereby reducing the structure size from 11,688ft2 to 9,225ft2 • There were no other changes to the original proposal. On November 25, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the revised project on a 4 to 2 vote, with Commissioners Knight and Lewis dissenting, as it felt that all previous concerns had been addressed by reducing the structure size through the elimination of the below-grade basement. Shortly after the 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 I BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 / DEPT FAX (310) 544-5293 E-MAIL: PLANNING@RPV.COM I WWW.PALOSVERDESCOM/RPV 1-2 approval, the applicant submitted the plans for Building & Safety plan check review, which expired in November 2010 due to inactivity. On February 14, 2013, a new property owner (Jia H Zhang) with the same previous architect (AGA Design Group) submitted new applications, requesting approval of a 10,656ft2, two-story, single-family residence, 852ft2 detached garage, 178ft2 detached pool restroom, a swimming pool, construction of walls and entry gate with 5,312yd 3 of related grading. The application was presented to the Planning Commission on September 24, 2013, with a Staff recommendation of denial, without prejudice, due to neighborhood compatibility concerns and excessive grading (Staff Report from the September 24th Planning Commission meeting is attached). On September 24, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and felt that the proposed project was not compatible with the immediate neighborhood and the Seacliff Hills Gui~elines. As a result, the Planning Commission continued the item to the November 12, 2013 meeting to give the applicant time to address the issues raised at the public hearing. On November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised project and while the Commission recognized that some revisions were done, the Commission felt that the proposed project was still not compatible with the neighborhood and involved too much grading (November 12, 2013 Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes are attached). However, the applicant did not request another opportunity to redesign the project at this time. As a result, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2013-25 (attached) on a 4 to 1 vote with Vice Chairman Leon dissenting, thereby denying the proposed project without prejudice. On November 21, 2013, the applicant (AGA Design Group) appealed the Planning Commission's decision requesting that the City Council provide another opportunity for the applicant to redesign the project. DISCUSSION A complete description of the proposed project and Staff's analysis of the required findings can be found in the attached Planning Commission Staff Reports (September 24, 2013 and November 12, 2013). Additionally, the Planning Commission minutes from the previous public hearings are attached. A summary of the Project Description, the Planning Commission's decision and the applicant's appeal are explained below. Proposed Project The proposed project that the Commission denied was for the construction of a new 10,656 square foot residence, 948 square foot detached garage and 178 square foot detached swimming pool restroom on an existing vacant lot. To accommodate the structure, the proposed project also included 2,990 cubic yards of grading and combination/retaining walls up to 17' in height. 1-3 Planning Commission's Decision In reviewing the project application, the Planning Commission raised concerns with the amount of grading, retaining wall heights, and the overall size of the structure. In order to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission, the applicant significantly reduced the quantity of grading; however, all other aspects of the project remained relatively the same. Ultimately, the consensus of the Planning Commission was that although the project was revised, it still needed more revisions to adequately address the Planning Commission's concerns and therefore denied the application without prejudice. Appellant's Grounds for Appeal On November 21, 2013, the appellant submitted an appeal letter (attached) along with a revised set of plans. In the appeal letter, the appellant explains that they understand the Planning ~ommission's concerns and hope to address the issues in a final revised plan. The revised plan includes the following changes: • Reduction of grading quantity from 2,990yd3 to 2,020yd 3 underneath the building footprint; • Reduction of lot coverage from 28% to 26.4%; and, • Reduction in basement size from 3,249ft2 to 1,449ft2. With these changes, the appellant feels that the Planning Commission's remaining concerns can be addressed. As such, the appellant is requesting that the City Council refer this project back to the Planning Commission for review. After conducting a preliminarily review of the revised plans, while Staff still has concerns related to structure size, Staff believes that the revised proposed project may address the Planning Commission's concerns. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the City Council remand the project back to the Planning Commission for review as requested by the appellant. FISCAL IMPACT In filing an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, the appellant paid a $2,275 appeal fee. According to Municipal Code Section 17.80.110, all appeal fees are refunded to an appellant if "a final decision is rendered granting his/her appeal". While Staff is agreeing with the appellant's request that the revised project be remanded back to the Planning Commission, Staff does not believe the appellant is entitled to a refund of the appeal fee since the applicant has revised his plans and is not requesting the Council to render a final decision on the proposed project. On the contrary, the applicant is requesting an opportunity to have his re-revised project reviewed by the Planning Commission without having to file a new application fee and therefore saving the applicant the $13, 755 in permit application costs. Notwithstanding the appeal fee received by the City, there would be some fiscal impact to the City by remanding the project back to the Planning Commission as Staff would process the revised project to the Planning Commission without the $13, 755 1-4 refiling fee required to pursue a new application. ALTERNATIVES In conducting an appeal hearing, Municipal Code Section 17.80.080 (Action by the City Council), identifies several alternative actions that the City Council may take on the appeal. Those alternatives are listed below. 1. Remand the matter to the Planning Commission (Appellant's request and Staff's recommendation). As discussed above, this action provides the applicant with an opportunity to have his revised project reviewed by the Planning Commission without having to file a new application fee and therefore saving the applicant $13,755 in permit application costs. 2. De.ny the application without prejudice. Given that the appellant is not requesting the City Council to act on the application but is instead requesting that a revision to the project denied by the Planning Commission be remanded back to the Planning Commission for additional review, the Council could elect to deny the appeal without prejudice and require the appellant to file a new application with new application fees that would subsequently be heard by the Planning Commission. This action would uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the original project without prejudice. As such, none of the $2,275 appeal fee will be refunded and the applicant would be required to refile the application with a standard filing fee of $13,755. 3. Decide to act on the revised project. If this alternative is selected, Staff would recommend that the Council direct Staff to complete a full analysis of the revised project and return to the City Council with appropriate findings at the next available meeting for review. If the City Council grants approval of a modified project, half the appeal fee ($1, 137 .50) would be refunded to the appellant. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Notification A public notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed out to all property owners who own property located within 500' radius of the subject site on January 16, 2014. No comments were received during the public commenting period. CONCLUSION Staff is recommending that the City Council remand the revised project back to the Planning Commission for review. The main reason for Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission reviewed a similar project over a series of meetings in 2008 and again over two meetings in 2013. 1-5 Attachments: • Appeal Letter (Goitom Tekletsion) • P.C. Minutes (November 12, 2013) • P.C. Resolution No. 2013-25 • P.C. Staff Report (November 12, 2013) • P.C. Minutes (September 24, 2013) • P.C. Staff Report (September 24, 2013) • P.C. Minutes (November 25, 2008) • P.C. Minutes (October 14, 2008) 1-6 Appeal Letter (Goitom Tekletsion) 1-7 111 Architecture II Landscape Architecture Ill Planning Thursday, November 21, 2013 Dear Ms. Kim, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2100 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite44 Manhattan Beach California, 90266 Tel. 310.546.5550 Fax. 310.546.9250 AGA Design Group Writes this letter on behalf of Mr. Zhang Yu the owner of (2902 Vista Def Mar, Rancho Palos Verdes. We would like to appeal this project to planning commission decisions and to redesign this project for approval. We believe this project is close to approval but we feel that we have not fully addressed all of the issues. AGA design Group and owner understand the planning commission and the planning department concerns with this project. We hope to address all the issues in our final redesign. We would like to request that the city council refer the revised plan back to planning commission for review. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Goitom Tekfetsion Architect 1-8 P.C. Minutes (November 12, 2013) 1-9 COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Site Plan Review, Grading Permit, Variance, Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2013-00328): 2902 Vista del Mar Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the property and the current proposal before the Commission. She explained at a previous meeting there were concerns expressed related to lot coverage, the driveway entry gate, the grading plan, and neighborhood compatibility and the item was continued. She discussed each issue, explaining the differences in lot coverage; the recessed gate; the ~hange in grading quantity, and the slight change in the design of the garage to accommodate an elevator. She explained this proposed project is similar to the previously approved plan from 2008 with the exception that the basement area has been added back into the plan and more exterior area is being disturbed for the rear yard space. She explained that staff feels this proposed project is too excessive in grading quantity and structure size and therefore not compatible with the existing homes on Vista del Mar. She added that staff does not believe that because this house will not be readily visible from the street, that it is compatible with the neighborhood. She also noted that the 2008 approved plan would allow for the largest structure size and the greatest grading quantity in the neighborhood, and the current proposal is for additional improvements beyond what the Planning Commission was comfortable with at that time; therefore, staff continues to recommend denial. She noted that the late correspondence is for revised elevations, pointing out the change on the west elevation where the elevation was revised to match the grading plan. Vice Chairman Leon asked staff why they consider a basement, which is out of view, part of the bulk and mass of the house. Associate Planner Kim answered that per the Code, structure size includes all habitable and non-habitable space proposed on the property. Because the below grade area is partially for a living area, staff included it as part of the overall structure size. Director Rojas added that while it is included in structure size, which is one of the components of neighborhood compatibility, it is not an issue in terms of bulk and mass. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved staff's recommend~tion to deny the proposed project as proposed, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2013 Page2 1-10 Commissioner Gerstner recognized that a considerable amount of work has been done on this plan, however he felt there is still a significant issue with the amount the structure is graded into the hillside at the main body of the house, noting the very tall retaining walls on the property. He felt that too much was being proposed on the property, which is what is driving the large amount of retention, and did not think that was a good idea. Chairman Emenhiser agreed that significant changes have been made with this plan, however he was still concerned with neighborhood compatibility and the overall size of the project. Vice Chairman Leon felt the neighborhood and the community has a right to neighborhood compatibility for the things that they can perceive, which would mean in this case, things that are above the ground. For square footage below the ground, he felt that \/\-'.as in the purview of the home owner and the rights of the homeowner to develop their property. In this case, by putting the basement underground, the house will not appear any larger than any of the other houses in the neighborhood. As such, he stated he will vote against the motion. Commissioner Nelson noted that the main difference between this house and the house next to it was the swimming pool area. He pointed out the large retaining wall on the neighboring property. He also noted his concerns with the swimming pool area. Commissioner Gerstner clarified he has no issue with the basement area which is entirely below grade. However, there is a large amount of the house that is below the existing grade that is not a basement. He also noted that the topography of the slope is not being respected, as basically a very large trench will be cut and the house placed in that trench. PC Resolution 2013-25 was approved, thereby denying the project as presented without prejudice, (4-1) with Vice Chairman Leon dissenting. 2. Chairman E nhiser opened the public hearing, and there bein the pu · hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2013 Page 3 1-11 P.C. Resolution No. 2013-25 (November 12, 2013) 1-12 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 10,656FT2 SPLIT-STORY RESIDENCE, A 948FT2 DETACHED GARAGE, A 178FT2 DETACHED POOL RESTROOM, A SWIMMING POOL, 2,990YD3 OF RELATED GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OF COMBINATION WALL UP TO 8' IN HEIGHT, RETAINING WALLS UP TO 17' IN HEIGHT AND A 8' TALL ENTRY FENCING/GATES WITHINTHE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF 2902 VISTA DEL MAR. WHEREAS, on July 12, 1977, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 23, establishing a residential planned development (RPO) comprising of Tract Nos. 32574, 32991 and 34834; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1986, the Planning Commission adopted the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines (attached) in recognition of the need for greater sensitivity and design flexibility in the construction of these custom homes. The Guidelines were supplemented on August 23, 1989; and, WHEREAS, on November 25, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2008-48, approving a tract amendment for the adjustment of a "Restricted Use Area" and a Conditional Use Permit Revision (CUP) and Grading Permit (GR) for a new 9,225ft2, two-story, single-family residence with 2,000yd3 of grading for the subject property l-0cated at 2902 Vista Del Mar; and, WHEREAS, the applicant (Mr. DiDominicantonio) submitted plans for plan check review, which expired on November 2010 due to inactivity; and, WHEREAS, on February 14, 2013, a different property owner with the same previous architect (AGA Design Group representing Jia Zhang) submitted a new CUP Revision, GP and MEP applications, requesting approval for a new 10,656ft2 , two-story, single-famify residence, 852ft2 detached garage, 178ft2 detached pool restroom, a swimming pool, construction of walls and entry gate with 5,,312yd 3 of related grading for the subject property; and, WHEREAS, on March 6, 2013, the project was deemed incomplete based on insufficient information; and, WHEREAS, on September 5, 2013, the project was deemed complete After a series of submittals of additional information; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the Planning Commission found no evidence that Case No. ZON2013-00063 will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, P.C. Resolution No. 2013-25 Page 1of4 1-13 WHEREAS, a notice was published on September 5, 2013, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on September 24, 2013, the applicant agreed to a 90-day extension to the decision deadline and the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November 12, 2013; thereby allowing the applicant additional time to address concerns related to lot coverage, driveway entry gate, grading plan and neighborhood compatibility; and, WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project is a request for the following: A 2,990yd3 of grading (2,430yd3 of cut and 560yd3 of fill) on a vacant lot for a new house and accessory structures. B. Construct a new 11, 782ft2 split-story residence with a below-grade basement and a detached three-car garage: a. 4,088ft2 first floor b. 3,319ft2 second floor c. 3,249ft2 basement d. 948ft2 detached garage C. 178ft2 detached pool restroom and a swimming pool in the rear yard. D. Combination wall (retaining walls with guardrails on top) up to 8' in height and retaining walls up to 1T in height around the resioence and rear patio area as a result of grading. E. 8' tall entry gates/fencing within the front yard setback, where the Code restricts the height to 3.5' maximum. Section 2: Approval of a Major Grading Permit is not warranted because: A The grading exceeds that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. More specifically, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2008-48, thereby allowing a 9,225ft2 residence with 1,850yd3 of grading for the subject lot. This resulted in the largest approved residence in the neighborhood. The approved structure size . and grading quantity were based on reductions to address the Commission's concerns related to neighborhood compatibility. The proposed project is now requesting a larger residence measuring 11,782ft2 in size with 2,990yd3 of grading. This proposal is significantly larger in size, altering more areas of the lot to accommodate more intensive project. The additional basement area which was once eliminated in the prior approval based on neighborhood compatibility concerns and a significantly enlarged rear yard area results in excessive grading than what is necessary for the economic development of the lot P.C. Resolution No. 2013-25 Page 2of4 1-14 B. The nature of the grading does not minimize disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are not reasonably natural. More specifically, while the previously approved project altered approximately half of the lot, the proposed project alters what appears to be two-thirds of the lot. Additionally, the proposed basement addition, which was eliminated in the previously approved project and the expansive rear yard patio improvements result in excessive grading that does not minimize disturbance to the existing contours. C. The grading does not take into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances. More specifically, nearly two-thirds of the lot will be altered as a result of the proposed project, while the previously approved project was limited to what appeared to be half for the largest residence in the neighborhood. The proposed grading quantity and area is excessive for the reasonable development of the lot D. The grading and/or related construction is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. More specifically, the average structure size is 6,751ft2, with tlie largest as 9,225ft2. The largest structure size of 9,225ft2 was granted for the subject property in 2008, but was never constructed. The structure size of 9,225ft2 was a result of reducing the original structure size of 11, 760ft2 based on Planning Commission's concerns with neighborhood compatibility by eliminating the basement area entirely. The proposed project is generally the same as the previous proposal except that it re- added the basement (3,249ft2 ) and a new detached pool restroom; resulting in a total structure size of 11, 782ft2 • Re-adding the basement results in a structure size which is nearly double the average and is 28% larger than the largest approved structure size of 9,225ft2, which ·is not compatible with the neighborhood character. Additionally, while the previous proposal was for 1,850yd3 of grading to alter nearly half the lot, the proposed project involves 2,990yd3 of grading to grade nearly two-thirds of the lot and an increase in lot coverage of7%. E. The grading does not conform nor can a finding can be mad.e that supports the proposed deviations exceeding the maximum 5' depth of cut; retaining walls in excess of 8' upslope, 3.5' downslope and 5' next to the driveway. SecUon 3: Approval of a Minor Exception Permit is not warranted because there are no practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or necessity to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of the General Code. More specifically, the proposed grading beyond what was granted in 2008 is excessive. The 2008 approval allowed for 1 ,850yd3 of grading for the largest two-story residence in the neighborhood, a detached garage and a pool area in the rear yard with minimal pool deck area, which resulted in altering what appeared to be half the lot. The proposed project increases the total structure size by 2,557ft2 and a substantially larger rear yard area. The proposed rear yard area includes a large patio, detached pool restroom, swimming pool, with additional decking and planters beyond. The proposed improvements appear to alter nearly two-thirds of the lot. Because of the requested fill necessary for the rear yard improvements, series of retaining walls are proposed, one of which requires a 3.8' tall guardrail on top. Since the proposed grading which includes the rear yard improvements is excessive, there are no practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or necessity to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of the General Code to warrant combination walls in excess of 6' in height. Section 4: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and P.C. Resolution No. 2013-25 Page 3 of 4 1-15 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, November 27, 2013. 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 November 27, 2013. Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, without prejudice, a Conditional Use Permit Revision, Major Grading Permit and Minor Exception Permit applications for property located at 2902 Vista Del Mar (Case No. ZON2013-00063). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1 z!h day of November 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerstner, Nelson, Tetreault,. Chairman Emenhiser NOES: Vice Chairman Leon ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioners Lewis, Tomblin P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 4of4 1-16 P.C. StaffReport (November 12, 2013) 1-17 CITY OF TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: RECOMMENDATION CHAIRMAIN AND MEMBERS OF THE PNNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPM ECTOR NOVEMBER 12, 2013 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION, GRADING PERMIT & MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2013-00063) So Kim, Associate Planne~ Adopt Resolution No. 2013-_, thereby denying without prejudice, the Conditional Use Permit Revision, Grading Permit and Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2013-00063). BACKGROUND On February 7, 2007, AGA Design Group, representing property owners Dominic and Kim DiDominicantonio, submitted an application for an amendment to the tract map, a Conditional Use Permit Revision 23 and a Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00061) to allow the development of a new 11,688ft2 residence (including garage) with 1,988yd3 of related grading. On October 14, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and felt that the new residence was not compatible with the neighborhood based on the proposed structure size, bulk and mass and questioned the visual impact from Palos Verdes Drive South. More specifically, the Commission felt that although the homes in the immediate neighborhood are generally large and massive, they felt that the proposal was beyond the scope of what exists in the neighborhood (Minutes from the October 14, 2008 P.C. Meeting are attached). As a result, the Commission continued the public hearing to November 25, 2008, to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project and address the concerns raised at the public hearing. Subsequently, the applicant revised the project by reducing the structure size from 11 ,688ft2 to 9,225ft2 by eliminating the below-grade basement area in its entirety. There were no other changes to the original proposal. On November 25, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised project and felt that all previous concerns had been addressed by reducing the structure size through the elimination of the below-grade basement and therefore adopted P.C .. Resolution No. 2008-48 on a 4 to 2 vote with Commissioners Knight and Lewis dissenting, approving a tract amendment for the adjustment of a , "Restricted Use Area", a Conditional Use Permit Revision (CUP) and Grading Permit (GR) for a new 9,225ft2, two-story, single-family residence with 2,000yd3 of grading for the subject property located at 2902 Vista Del Mar. Shortly after the approval, the applicant (AGA Design Group representing Dominic DiDominicantonio) submitted the plans for plan check review, which expired in November 2010 due to inactivity. ,•' 1-18 On February 14, 2013, a different property owner with the same previous architect (AGA Design Group representing Jia Zhang) submitted a new CUP Revision, GP and MEP applications, requesting approval for a 10,656ft2, two-story, single-family residence, 852ft2 detached garage, 178ft2 detached pool restroom, a swimming pool, construction of walls and entry gate with 5,312yd3 of related grading for the subject property. The application was presented to the Planning Commission on September 24, 2013, with a Staff recommendation of denial, without prejudice due to neighborhood compatibility concerns and excessive grading (Staff Report from the September 24th meeting is attached). On September 24th, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project and expressed the following concerns: • Lot Coverage -The proposed lot coverage appears to be incorrect. Both the applicant and Staff should verify the accuracy of the proposed lot coverage. • Driveway Entry Gate -The proposed driveway entry gate at the front property line aligns with t~e sidewalk and therefore may cause a safety hazard as vehicles will need to idle partially on the street and the sidewalk while waiting for the driveway gate to open. The driveway gate should be setback to address this issue. • Grading Plan -There is no detailed grading plan that shows the location and heights of retaining walls or the driveway slope. A finished grading plan should be submitted for review. • Neighborhood Compatibility -The proposed project appears to be intensive for the neighborhood and may not be compatible with the Seacliff Hills Guidelines and suggested that the applicant may want to revise the plan. After the applicant agreed to a 90-day extension, which established a new decision deadline of February 4, 2014, the Planning Commission continued this item to the November 12, 2013 meeting to give the applicant time to address the issues raised at the public hearing. DISCUSSION On October 29th, the applicant submitted revised plans and made the following changes to address the Planning Commission's concerns: • Lot coverage decreased from 28.5% to 28%. • The 6' tall wrought iron fencing and gates along the front property line have been increased to 8' maximum in height and have been recessed back, with the driveway gate located 20' back from the front property line. • The grading plan has been substantially revised, resulting in: o Reduction of grading quantity from 5,312yd3 to 2,990yd3 by reducing the grading area. o Retaining wall height reduction from a maximum 18.6' to 17'. o Combination wall height increase from a maximum 7.5' to 8' in height. o Replacement of the on-grade walkway from the street to the residence with a new elevator inside the garage to a lower level that leads to the house, under the driveway. o Garage increased in size from 852ft2 to 948ft2 to accomodate the elevator within the structure, resulting in an overall structure size increase from 11,686ft2 to 11,782ft2. o Driveway slope reduction.from 20% maximum to 15%. o Overall depth of grading and related retaining wall heights have changed throughout the proposed building footprint. 1-19 Staff's analysis of the revised project with regards to the previous Staff and Planning Commission's concerns with lot coverage, driveway gate location, grading plan and neighborhood compatibility is discussed below. Lot Coverage At the previous September 24th public hearing, Staff presented a PowerPoint presentation that compared the 2008 approved site plan and the proposed site plan. The lot coverage of the 2008 approved plans and the proposed plans were 28% and 28.5%, respectively. Both the Commission and Staff agreed that the disturbed area of the proposed plan appeared to be significantly greater than the difference of 0.5%. Based on the apparent discrepancy, the Commission directed both the applicant and Staff to verify the lot coverage. Following the Commission's direction, the applicant re-calculated the lot coverage of both the 2008 approved plans and the proposed plans and found that the 2008 approved plans are incorrect. Not only wa~ the lot coverage calculation incorrect, the lot size used for the calculation was also incorrect. The correct lot coverage for the 2008 approved plans is 21 %. Additionally, the proposed lot coverage for the current plan decreased from 28.5% to 28% by reducing the depth of the rear lawn area between the residence and the pool walkway from 18' to 1 O'. Staff scaled the plans and is comfortable with the applicant's claim of 28% lot coverage on the revised plans. Driveway Entry Gate At the last public hearing, the plans indicated 6' tall fencing along the front property line, including a walkway gate and an electronic driveway entry gate. The Commission was concerned with the driveway entry gate located at the property line since it may cause a safety hazard as a vehicle would idle partially over the sidewalk and the street, while waiting for it to open. As such, the Commission suggested moving the gate so that a vehicle would be entirely off both the street and the sidewalk while waiting for the gate to open. The applicant understood the concerns and moved the fencing so that the vehicle entry gate portion is 20' away from the front property line. Additionally, the applicant raised the height of the proposed fencing/gate within the front yard setback from 6' to 8'. It should be noted that fences up to 3'-6" in height area are allowed by-right within the front yard setback. However, this height can be increased to 6' with an approval of a Minor Exception Permit (MEP). While, Staff is able to make all the required findings for the approval of a MEP for a 6' tall fence/gate within the front yard setback, as described in the attached September 24th Staff Report, fences above 6' in height within the front yard setback require an approval of a Variance. A Variance application has not been submitted by the applicant and even if there was, Staff would not be able to make the following findings to recommend approval: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district; 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like . conditions in the same zoning district; 3. That granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located; and ,. 4. That granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the general plan or the ,.· 1-20 policies and requirements of the coastal specific plan. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the proposed 8' tall fence/gate within the front yard setback unless it is reduced back to 6' in height. Grading Plan As mentioned under the 'Discussion' section above, the grading quantity has chan~ed substantially since the previous plans that were presented to the Commission on September 241 • The applicant explained that the reason behind the discrepancy is that the original plans were prepared by an architect, whereas the revised plans were prepared by an engineer. Therefore, the applicant indicated to Staff that the revised plans are accurate while the previous ones were conceptual and preliminary as he stated at the last hearing. As discussed above, the grading plan has been revised, which has resulted in a substantially reduced grading quantity from 5,312yd 3 to 2,990yd 3 . Staff believes that this notable change along with other minor wall height changes are a reflection of a more accurately prepared plan, rather than a revision to the previous plan since all other aspects of the plan are generally the same (i.e. altered area, building footprint, ridge heights, etc.). The Commission specifically asked at the previous hearing what happens to the grade between the subject property and the abutting property to the west. In reviewing both the previous and revised grading plans, the grade remains generally the same where no retaining walls are required along the side property. Simply put, the proposed driveway, garage and residence will appear sunken as the ridgeline will be slightly above the level of the existing grade, with little to no changes to the existing grades along the side property line. Additionally, the only design change since the previous proposal is the removal of the on-grade walkway from the street to the house and a larger detached garage to accommodate an elevator within the structure that leads to a short walkway below a portion of the driveway. Since the level of the detached garage is located approximately 11' higher than the level of the house, an open tunnel will be created that leads from underneath the detached garage and a portion of the driveway to the house. Neighborhood Compatibility As a reminder, the 2008 approved plans were the result of the applicant revising the plans to address the Commission's concerns related to structure size, mass and bulk. The only change made to address the Commission's concerns at that time (2008) was the elimination of a below- grade basement area that ultimately reduced the structure size by approximately 2,000ft2 in size (Minutes from the October 14 and November 25, 2008 meetings are attached). The proposed project is similar to the 2008 approved plans, except that the basement has been added back and i:nore exterior area is being disturbed to the rear for additional yard space. Given that the 2008 Commission approved plans allowed for the largest structure size and grading quantity in the· neighborhood and yet th~ currently proposed project is a request for additional improvements that ,, mirror and expand beyond the initial 2008 request that the Commission directed the applicant to revise, Staff continues to factor in the Commission's 'concerns in 2008 and therefore continues to recommend denial of the currently proposed project. Although, most of the custom homes in the neighborhood were granted some deviations to the Seacliff Hills Guidelines, as discussed in the September 241h Staff Report (attached), Staff feels that the proposed project is incompatible with not only the applicable guidelines but with exiting improvements in the neighborhood. Therefore, Staff continues to feel that the proposed grading quantity and structure size is too excessive and recommends denial, without prejudice to the proposed project. 1-21 CONCLUSION For the reasons explained in this report, Staff believes that while the revised project alleviates some of the concerns identified by the Planning Commission with the original proposal, the revised project continues to result in excessive grading and is not compatible with the neighborhood. As a result, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny without prejudice Case No. ZON2013-00063. ALTERNATIVES The alternative available for consideration by the Planning Commission is: 1. Identify any issues of concern and direct the applicant to re-design and continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting to a date certain. 2. Adopt a modified Resolution No. 2013-_; thereby, denying without prejudice, Case No. ZON2013-00063. 3. Approve Case No. ZON2013-00063 and direct Staff to return with a revised resolution at a date certain. ATTACHMENTS • Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-_ • Draft P.C. Minutes (September24, 2013) • P.C. Staff Report (September 24, 2013) • P.C. Minutes (November 25, 2008) • P.C. Minutes (October 14, 2008) • Project Plans 1-22 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITH PREJUDICE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 10,656FT2 SPLIT-STORY RESIDENCE, A 948FT2 DETACHED GARAGE, A 178FT2 DETACHED POOL RESTROOM, A SWIMMING POOL, 2,990YD3 OF RELATED GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OF COMBINATION WALL UP TO 8' IN HEIGHT, RETAINING WALLS UP TO 17' IN HEIGHT AND A 8' TALL ENTRY FENCING/GATES WITHINTHE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF 2902 VISTA DEL MAR. WHEREAS, on July 12, 1977, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 23, establishing a residential planned development (RPD) comprising of Tract Nos. 3257 4, 34991 and 34834; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1986, the Planning Commission adopted the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines (attached) in recognition of the need for greater sensitivity and design flexibility in the construction of these custom homes. The Guidelines were supplemented on August23, 1989;and, WHEREAS, on November 25, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2008-48, approving a tract amendment for the adjustment of a "Restricted Use Area" and a Conditional Use Permit Revision (CUP) and Grading Permit (GR) for a new 9,225ft2 , two-story, single-family residence with 2,000yd3 of grading for the subject property located at 2902 Vista Del Mar; and, WHEREAS, the applicant (Mr. DiDominicantonio) submitted plans for plan check review, which expired on November 201 O due to inactivity; and, WHEREAS, on February 14, 2013, a different property owner with the same previous architect (AGA Design Group representing Jia Zhang) submitted a new CUP Revision, GP and MEP applications, requesting approval for a new 10,656ft2, two-story, single-family residence, 852ft2 detached garage, 178ft2 detached pool restroom, a swimming pool, construction of walls and entry gate with 5,312yd 3 of related grading for the subject property; and, WHEREAS, on March 6, 2013, the project was deemed incomplete based on insufficient information; and, WHEREAS, on September 5, 2013, the project was deemed complete After a series of submittals of additional information; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of. the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, · California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the Planning Commission found no evidence that Case No. ZON2013-00063 will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 1of4 ,. 1-23 WHEREAS, a notice was published on September 5, 2013, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on September 24, 2013, the applicant agreed to a 90-day extension to the decision deadline and the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November 12, 2013; thereby allowing the applicant additional time to address concerns related to lot coverage, driveway entry gate, grading plan and neighborhood compatibility; and, WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: · The proposed project is a request for the following: A. 2,990yd3 of grading (2,430yd3 of cut and 560yd3 of fill) on a vacant lot for a new house and accessory structures. B. Construct a new 11, 782ft2 split-story residence with a below-grade basement and a detached three-car garage: a. 4,088ft2 first floor b. 3,319ft2 second floor c. 3,249ft2 basement d. 948ft2 detached garage C. 178ft2 detached pool restroom and a swimming pool in the rear yard. D. Combination wall (retaining walls with guardrails on top) up to 8' in height and retaining walls up to 17' in height around the residence and rear patio area as a result of grading. E. 8' tall entry gates/fencing within the front yard setback, where the Code restricts the height to 3.5' maximum. Section 2: Approval of a Major Grading Permit is not warranted because: A. The grading exceeds that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. More specifically, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2008-48, thereby allowing a 9,225ft2 residence with 1,850yd3 of grading for the subject lot. This resulted in the largest approved residence in the neighborhood. The approved structure size and grading quantity were based on reductions to address the Commission's concerns related to neighborhood compatibility. The proposed project is now requesting a larger residence measuring 11, 782ft2 in siz:e with 2,990yd3 of grading. This proposal is significantly larger in size, altering more areas of the lot to accommodate more intensive · project. The additional basement area which was once eliminated in the prior approval based on neighborhood compatibility concerns and a significantly enlarged rear yard area results in excessive grading than what is necessary for the economic development of the lot. P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 2of4 1-24 B. The nature of the grading does not minimize disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are not reasonably natural. More specifically, while the previously approved project altered approximately half of the lot, the proposed project alters what appears to be two-thirds of the lot. Additionally, the proposed basement addition, which was eliminated in the previously approved project and the expansive rear yard patio improvements result in excessive grading that does not minimize disturbance to the existing contours. C. The grading does not take into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances. More specifically, nearly two-thirds of the lot will be altered as a result of the proposed project, while the previously approved project was limited to what appeared to be half for the largest residence in the neighborhood. The proposed grading quantity and area is excessive for the reasonable development of the lot. D. The grading and/or related construction is not compatible with the immediate 11eighborhood character. More specifically, the average structure size is 6,751ft2, with the largest as 9,225ft2. The largest structure size of 9,225ft2 was granted for the subject property in 2008, but was never constructed. The structure size of 9,225ft2 was a result of reducing the original structure size of 11, 760ft2 based on Planning Commission's concerns with neighborhood compatibility by eliminating the basement area entirely. The proposed project is generally the same as the previous proposal except that it re- added the basement (3,249ft2 ) and a new detached pool restroom; resulting in a total structure size of 11, 782ft2. Re-adding the basement results in a structure size which is nearly double the average and is 28% larger than the largest approved structure size of 9,225ft2, which is not compatible with the neighborhood character. Additionally, while the previous proposal was for 1,850yd3 of grading to alter nearly half the lot, the proposed project involves 2,990yd3 of grading to grade nearly two-thirds of the lot and an increase in lot coverage of 7%. E. The grading does not conform nor can a finding can be made that supports the proposed deviations exceeding the maximum 5' depth of cut; retaining walls in excess of 8' upslope, 3.5' downslope and 5' next to the driveway. Section 3: Approval of a Minor Exception Permit is not warranted because there are no practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or necessity to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of the General Code. More specifically, the proposed grading beyond what was granted in 2008 is excessive. The 2008 approval allowed for 1,850yd3 of grading for the largest two-story residence in the neighborhood, a detached garage and a pool area in the rear yard with minimal pool deck area, which resulted in altering what appeared to be half the lot. The proposed project increases the total structure size by 2,557ft2 and a substantially larger rear yard area. The proposed rear yard area includes a large patio, detached pool restroom, swimming pool, with additional decking and planters beyond. The proposed improvements appear to alter nearly two-thirds of the lot. Because of the requested fill necessary for the rear yard improvements, series of retaining walls are proposed, one of which requires a 3.8' tall guardrail on top. Since the proposed grading which includes the rear yard improvements is · excessive, there are no practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or necessity to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of the General Code to warrant combination walls in excess of 6' in height. Section 4: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 3of4 , .. 1-25 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, November 27, 2013. 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 November 27, 2013. Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, without prejudice, a Conditional Use Permit Revision, Major Grading Permit and Minor Exception Permit applications for property located at 2902 Vista Del Mar (Case No. ZON2013-00063). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 121h day of November 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission David Emenhiser Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 4 of 4 1-26 P.C. Minutes (September 24, 2013) 1-27 2. Site Plan Review, Grading, Variance, Minor Exception Permit Case No. ZON2013-00328): 2902 Vista del Mar Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the prior approvals granted by the Planning Commission for a new house on this property. She compared the project that was previously approved to the project now before the Commission, pointing out the differences in the two. Most notably, the new project now has a 3,200 square foot basement that had previously been eliminated because of neighborhood compatibility concerns and the increased grading in the rear yard. She explained that staff felt that requesting a structure size larger than the one previously approved as well as the increased grading quantity is excessive and would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Additionally, given the topography of this property is similar to properties on the same side of the slope, staff felt that requesting two and ~ half times the amount of grading quantities is excessive and unreasonable and beyond the economic development of the lot. Based on the analysis and discussion in the staff report, staff is recommending denial of the project as currently presented. Commission Nelson noted that when visiting the property he did not feel the current project as silhouetted appears to be any larger than the home above it or most of the houses in the neighborhood. In addition, he did not feel the grading quantity was excessive for the property and disagreed with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tetreault referred to the previously approved project which constituted 28% lot coverage, while the current proposal is at 28.5% lot coverage. He noted that in looking at the two projects it appears the current project is much larger and has more than .5% lot coverage increase from the original project. Associate Planner Kim stated staff had the same concern, and asked the architect to verify the numbers. The architect assured staff that the lot coverage is correct at 28.5 percent. Commissioner Tetreault did not think there was any way the new project was only .5% larger in lot coverage than the original project, asked if that number has in any way been verified by staff. Associate Planner Kim explained that staff did not have the driveway or hardscape square footage for the previously approved project so staff was not able to independently verify the accuracy of the previously approved project's lot coverage. Vice Chairman Leon asked staff if they have verified the math of the current proposal in terms of lot coverage. Associate Planner Kim noted the breakdown of measurements on the cover page of the plans, but stated she had not scaled the plans. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2013 Page3 1-28 Vice Chairman Leon agreed that 5,300 cubic yards is a high amount of grading in comparison to the adjacent properties, but asked staff how that compares to other hillside properties in the City. Associate Planner Kim agreed there have been some properties in other parts of the City where the grading quantity has been similar, however the existing homes in this neighborhood have similar sloping conditions, and staff felt that 5,300 cubic yards is excessive for the conditions of the lot. Vice Chairman Leon noted that the difference is the property owners are basically digging a large hole and putting the house in the hole, and when it is finished it won't appear much different than the other house in the neighborhood. He also asked, given the very large size of this home, if the code requires more than three parking spaces. Associate Planner Kim answered that the code requires a three-car garage, but no more. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if there were any pictures of neighboring homes to compare this proposal with, in terms of neighborhood compatibility. Associate Planner Kim explained that one cannot see the neighboring homes from the public right-of-way. She displayed a photo taken from Palos Verdes Drive East showing the silhouette and one home directly to next to the subject property. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Goitom Tekletsion (architect) explained that in terms of lot coverage, he very carefully broke each section of the plan down and was very confident that the lot coverage calculation is correct. He also noted that the actual proposed building is the same size as the previously approved residence; the change comes from the proposed basement. He also pointed out that this is a very large lot, at 1.6 acres. Commissioner Gerstner addressed the grading and the need for what he felt would be a significant retaining wall, and noted that the wall does not show on the plans. He asked Mr. Tekletsion how he was going to deal with the differences in elevation at the side of the lot. Mr. Tekletsion explained that this is a conceptual plan and that there will be a retaining wall built at this location that has been designed by a civil engineer. Commissioner Gerstner understood, however he noted that the height and location of a retaining wall is something that the Planning Commission should review as part of this process. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2013 Page4 1-29 Eric Lin (representing land owner) stated his clients bought this property for the large lot size and outstanding views. He explained the original design of the approved house does not allow for enough storage and display area for the new owners, which is why they have requested the large basement. He acknowledged this home will be larger than the others in the neighborhood, but pointed out this lot is larger than the others in the neighborhood. In regards to the grading, he stated that the large quantity of grading is to accommodate the proposed basement and the swimming pool, and noted that 5,300 cubic yards is a rough estimate and the owners feel that once they meet with an engineer they can bring that number down significantly. Commissioner Nelson asked if the basement will be used largely for storage and not as livable space. Mr. Lin answered that the plan for the basement is that it be used for storage and displays .. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if there had been any correspondence from the neighbors. Associate Planner Kim answered that staff had not received any correspondence from the neighbors. Chairman Emenhiser closed he public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he generally does not have issues with a larger home if it is designed in such a way that it is not seen from the street or neighboring properties. However, he felt there are some things in this design that are mitigating, in particular the grading. He did not feel the proposed grading was possible without significant retaining walls, and the changes necessary to the house to accommodate the grading would be significant enough that the Commission would want to see them. He stated that while he is generally in support of a larger subterranean solution, he felt there are other factors that play into it that could be a negative. In terms of lot coverage, he felt that possibly the pervious surfaces on either side of the pool and either side of the house may not have been calculated into the lot coverage. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff on what basis they made the determination that the house was not compatible with the neighborhood. Associate Planner Kim explained that grading was the primary basis for the determination, as well as the structure size. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if it was their opinion that the visible portion of the home, its apparent bulk and mass, is not compatible with the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2013 Page 5 1-30 Associate Planner Kim answered that the determination was made solely on the structure size, and staff did not find the apparent bulk and mass to be incompatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault did not believe the actual square footage of a project has been used in the past when determining neighborhood compatibility, but rather the determination had more to do with the structure's apparent bulk and mass. He acknowledged that the proposed 11,000 plus square foot project is much larger than any other structure in the neighborhood, and asked if that was staff's main concern. Associate Planner Kim answered that staff was concerned with the size, but noted another determining factor for staff was that when the project was previously approved in 2008 the Planning Commission had concerns with the size, and to help reduce the size of the project the basement was eliminated. With the elimination of the basement the Com~ission was able to make the neighborhood compatibility finding. Commissioner Tetreault stated he had several concerns, the first being the point brought to light by Commissioner Gerstner in regards to the existing grades on the side elevations and how a retaining wall of some unknown height will be needed. He felt it was necessary to see the retaining walls on a plan before the Commission could make a decision. In addition, he was concerned with the lot coverage. He felt the scope of this project is so much larger and takes up so much more of the lot than the 2008 project that he could not believe this current project was only .5% more lot coverage. He felt that before he could vote on this project he needed to have that verified. He also briefly discussed the Seacliff Hills Guidelines and felt this proposal was quite intensive for a lot in this development. He felt this was a major compatibility issue and questioned if the proposed development met the Seacliff Hills Guidelines. He felt if the Commission allowed this project to be developed then the Guidelines for this area are pretty much out the window. Vice Chairman Leon did not feel the plan presented to the Commission will look the same once the grading and retaining walls are taken into consideration. He too would have a hard time supporting the proposal until he saw a plan showing the retaining wall and how it will fit into the natural topography. He was in favor of the use of the basement, as it allowed the owner more square footage without imposing upon their neighbors with a massive house. He reiterated that when there is a house of this size there should be an accommodation for a larger number of cars. Chairman Emenhiser stated he was concerned about neighborhood compatibility as well as the bulk and mass of the house. While the basement may be a way to address that issue, it significantly increases the amount of grading on the lot. He felt that the applicant may want to revise the plan and present that plan to the Commission at a later date. Director Rojas noted that if the Commission would like to continue the public hearing, and noted it could be heard as early as October 22nd. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2013 Page 6 1-31 Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to October 22, 2013 to allow the applicant an opportunity to present redesigned alternatives to address the Commission's concerns, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. Mr. Lin stated his clients were willing to look at other options; however he noted that with the Commission's list of concerns they might need more time. Director Rojas noted that the applicant will have to grant a one-time ninety day extension per the Permit Streamling Act in order to go beyond the October 22nd meeting. Mr. Lin agreed to the one time extension. Commissjoner Gerstner added that he would also like to see addressed the issues of the very significant soil retention work to do the excavation of the basement. He would not want this body to approve the house and find out later that it was not feasible to build because of these issues. Commissioner Tetreault revised his motion to continue the public hearing to November 12, 2013, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. The motion was approved, (5-0). 3. Site Plan Review Gradin Variance Minor Exce tion Permit ZON2013-00328): 6031 Palos Verdes Drive South Associa Planner Kim presented the staff report. She explained scope of the project and need for the various applications. She stated was able to make all of the required ings for approval of the proposed projec . She also noted staff felt the biggest benefit i · proving this site was aesthetics he displayed a photo of the current condition of the s· noting the high visibilit nd accessibility of the generator to the public. Staff fells the cur t proposal is mo appealing and any noise from the generator will be better containe s a resul the retaining walls around the perimeter of the site. Chairman Emenhiser opened the Philip Kang (representing questions. Commissioner N on noted this facility has been in place for ma years and the Sanitation District felt it needed to make a chang Mr. Ka answered the generator was placed at the site temporarily and blo ma· enance staff access to the main pump house behind it. He stated it is a pr · ct Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2013 Page 7 1-32 Staff Report (September 24, 2013) 1-33 CITYOF STAFF REPORT TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECT~'(:~ DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 ~ .. SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION, GRADING PERMIT & MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2013-00063) PROJECT ADDRESS: 2902 VISTA DEL MAR APPLICANT: AGA DESIGN GROUP LANDOWNER: JIAH.ZHANG STAFF SOKIM~ COORDINATOR: ASSOCIATE PLANNER REQUESTED ACTION: CONSTRUCT A NEW SPLIT-STORY (16'/30' HEIGHT ENVELOPE), 10,656FT2 RESIDENCE (4,088FT2 FIRST FLOOR, 3,319FT2 SECOND FLOOR AND 3,249FT2 BASEMENT), A 852FT2 DETACHED GARAGE, A 178FT2 DETACHED POOL RESTROOM, A SWIMMING POOL, 5,312YD3 OF RELATED GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OF COMBINATION WALLS UP TO 7.5' IN HEIGHT, RETAINING WALLS UP TO 18.6' IN HEIGHT AND A 6' TALL ENTRY GATE ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-_; THEREBY DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CASE NO. ZON2013-00063. REFERENCES: ZONING: LAND USE: CODE SECTIONS: GENERAL PLAN: TRAILS PLAN: SPECIFIC PLAN: CEQA: ACTION DEADLINE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-1/RPD) VACANT 17.02, 17.40, 17.48, 17.54, 17.60, 17.66, 17.74, 17.76, 17.80 & SEACLIFF HILLS DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES RESIDENTIAL S1 DU/AC NONE NONE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15303) NOVEMBER 4, 2013 ··' 1-34 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE BACKGROUND On July 12, 1977, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 23, establishing a residential planned development (RPO) comprising of Tract Nos. 32574, 32991 and 34834. The original intent of the developer was to build tract homes, which resulted in pre- established grading, building footprints, elevations, and total square footage for each lot in the development. After the original approval, changing economic conditions prompted the development to sell the lots individually rather than develop the tracts at one time. Since that time, the individual buyer's plans for custom homes have been evaluated pursuant to the pre- approved site plans. On September 9, 1986, the Planning Commission adopted the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines (attached) in recognition of the need for greater sensitivity and design flexibility in the construction of these custom homes. The Guidelines were supplemented on August 23, 1989. The Guidelines generally reflected the City's RS-1 standards, and also paid specific attention to the unique location and visibility of the Seac/iff Hills tract. Three separate properties (2938, 2912, 2903 Vista Del Mar) were developed prior to the adoption of the Seacliff Hills guidelines and four properties (2950, 2930, 2923, 2909 Vista Del Mar) were approved afterwards. On November 25, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2008-48, approving a tract amendment for the adjustment of a "Restricted Use Area" and a Conditional Use Permit Revision (CUP) and Grading Permit (GR) for a new 9,225ft2, two-story, single-family residence with 2,000yd 3 of grading for the subject property located at 2902 Vista Del Mar. Shortly after the approval, the applicant (AGA Design Group representing Dominic DiDominicantonio) submitted the plans for plan check review, which expired on November 2010 due to inactivity. On February 14, 2013, a different property owner with the same previous architect (AGA Design Group representing Jia Zhang) submitted a new CUP Revision, GP and MEP applications, requesting approval for a new 10,656ft2 , two-story, single-family residence, 852ft2 detached garage, 178ft2 detached pool restroom, a swimming pool, construction of walls and entry gate with 5,312yd3 of related grading for the subject property. Based on initial review, the project was deemed incomplete on March 6, 2013 based on insufficient information. After a series of submittals of additional information and incomplete letters, the project was deemed complete on September 5, 2013. Since the initial submittal, Staff raised concerns with the overall structure size and grading quantity and advised the applicants to consider scaling down the project. Despite Staff's concerns, the applicant chose to move forward with the proposal as-is, understanding that Staff may not be able to make the required findings, leading to a recommendation of denial. As such, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed out to all property owners located within 500' radius of the subject site on September 5, 2013. No public comme,nts were received. ,,. SITE & PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is a vacant 1.43-acre downslope lot located at the end of the cul-de-sac on Vista Del Mar. The site is bounded by a developed lot to the west; a developed flag-lot to the north; City-owned open space to the east; and City-owned open space to the south across Palos Verdes Drive East. The land use and zoning designations are Residential .::_1 du/ac and 1-35 RS-1, respectively. The lot is part of the Seacliff Hills community, which was approved as a residential planned development (RPO) pursuant to Conditional Use Permit No. 23 in 1977. The applicant is proposing the following: 1) 5,312yd 3 of grading on a vacant lot for a new house and accessory structures: a. 4,348yd3 of cut for the residence b. 582yd 3 of cut for the detached garage c. 475yd 3 of cut and 43yd3 of fill for the rear yard area d. 518yd 3 of cut for the driveway e. 18yd3 of cut and 472yd3 of fill for the rear pool/deck area 2) Construct a new 10,656ft2 two-story residence with a below-grade basement and a detached three-car garage: a. 4,088ft2 first floor b. 3,319ft2 second floor c. 3,249ft2 basement d. 852ft2 detached garage 3) 178ft2 detached pool restroom and a swimming pool in the rear yard. 4) Combination wall (retaining walls with guardrails on top) up to 7.5' in height and retaining walls up to 18.6' in height around the residence and rear patio area as a result of grading. 5) 6' tall entry gate/fencing within the front yard setback, where the Code restricts the height to 3.5' maximum. Since the existing lot descends from the front property line, the ridgeline of all proposed structures will be below the street level of Vista Del Mar (approx. 868). The only visible improvement from the street will be the 6' tall entry gate/fencing described in item no. 5 above. From the sidewalk, two entry gates are proposed, one for pedestrian use near the center of the front property line and the other for vehicles to the east. The pedestrian gate will open up to on- grade steps that will lead down to the motor court area below. The vehicle entry gate will lead to a long concrete driveway that will lead down to the same motor court approximate~y 70' away and approximately 20' below the street level. The ridgeline of the garage is proposed at 856 and the residence at 854.5, which is 12' and 13.5' below the street level, respective~y. CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 23 When Conditional Use f.?ermit No. 23 (CUP 23) was approved in 1977, it established approved building footprints and limits of grading for all of the lots in the Seac/iff Hills community (Tract Nos. 3257 4, 32991 and 34834). The subject property is Lot 6 of Tract No. 32991. CUP 23 also established the development standards for the community. Any development proposal that deviates from the approved building footprint, limits of grading or development standards requires the approval of a revision to CUP 23. Most existing homes in the Seacliff Hills community required revisions to CUP 23. The proposed request also deviates from the Seac/iff Hills guidelines and therefore requires a revision to CUP 23. In considering a conditional use permit revision, RPVDC Section 17.60.0SO(A) requires the Planning Commission to make the ··' 1-36 following findings in reference to the property and project under consideration (RPVDC language is boldface, followed by Staff's analysis in normal type): 1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by this title or by conditions imposed under this section to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood. Pursuant to CUP 23, this lot was originally approved for a 4,000ft2 , multi-level single-family residence resulting in 9.5% lot coverage. In 2008, the Planning Commission granted a CUP revision, approving a 8,369ft2 two-story residence, a 836ft2 detached garage and swimming pool, resulting in 28% lot coverage (30% max. allowed). The pending request is for a larger 10,656ft2 3-story home, a 852ft2 detached garage and a 178ft2 detached pool restroom, resulting in a lot coverage of 28.5%. The proposed project meets the lot coverage and setback requirements and therefore, Staff feels that the subject site is adequate in size and shape to accommpdate the proposed project. As such, this finding can be met. 2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. The subject property is served by an existing public street (Vista Del Mar) that serves all eleven lots and connects to Palos Verdes Drive East. The proposed project will not alter the nature of traffic generated by the lot as compared to the originally-approved residence. Therefore, this finding can be met. 3. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof. The subject property is located adjacent to the City-owned "San Ramon Ecological Reserve" (formerly referred to as the "switchback" parcel) that is part of the City's greater Palos Verdes Nature (NCCP) preserve. The applicant prepared a biological survey of the site to identify the presence of any existing sensitive plant or animal species, and to determine if the project would have direct or indirect effects upon habitat areas within the NCCP preserve. The biological survey found that the project would result in no direct or indirect impacts to habitat on site or in the adjacent NCCP preserve. Therefore, Staff believes that this finding can be met. 4. The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Residential, ,:::1 du/acre. The development and improvement of single-family residences are among the primary permitted uses within this land use designation. This is also reflected in Housing Activity Policy No. 3 of the General Plan (p. 78), which calls upon the City to "[encourage] and assist in the maintenance and imprnvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design." Staff believes that the proposed project implements this policy. Therefore, Staff believes that this finding can be met. 5. If the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control bistricts) of Title 17, the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter. The subject property and all other properties on Vista Del Mar are subject to the Natural (OC-1) ··' 1-37 and Urban Appearance (OC-3) overlay control districts, as established pursuant to Sections 17.40.040 and 17.40.060, respectively, of the City's Development Code. Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) -The purpose of the OC-1 District is to maintain and enhance land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation; and enhance watershed management, control storm drainage and erosion, and control the water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies within the City. Projects within the OC-1 District are subject to review for consistency with specified performance criteria to ensure that they will not: i. Cover or alter the land surface configuration by moving earth on more than ten percent of the total land area of the portion of the parcel within the district, excluding the main structure and access; ii. Alter the course; carrying capacity or gradient of any natural watercourse or drainage course which can be calculated to carry over one hundred cubic feet per second once in ten years; iii. Fill, drain or alter the shape or quality of any water body, spring or related natural spreading area of greater than one acre; iv. Develop otherwise permitted uses within fifty feet of the edge of a watercourse or drainage course which can be calculated to carry more than five hundred cubic feet per second once in ten years; v. Clear the vegetation from more than twenty percent of the area of the portion of the parcel within the district, or remove. by thinning more than twenty percent of the vegetation on the parcel, excluding dead material and excluding those brush clearance activities necessary for fire protection; vi. Use herbicides to control or kill vegetation; vii. Remove vegetation within a designated wildlife habitat area; viii. Cover more than twenty percent of a parcel known to contain sand, gravel or other materials which may aid in natural beach replenishment; ix. Alter the characteristics of the surface soils so as to allow surface water to stand for over twelve hours; make the soil inadequate as a bearing surface for pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle or motorized emergency vehicle access; make the soil unstable and subject to sliding, slipping, or water or wind erosion; x. Result in. chemicals, nutrients or particulate contaminants or siltation being discharged, by stormwater or other r.unoff, into a natural. or manmade drainage course leading to the ocean or any other natural or manmade body of water; xi. Propose a sewer or waste water disposal system involving the spreading, injecting or percolating of effluent into the ocean or into the soil of a natural or manmade drainage course, if alternative locations are available; 1-38 xii. Alter, penetrate, block or create erosion or significant change of the area within one hundred feet of an ocean beach or top edge of an ocean bluff or cliff; xiii. Alter, penetrate, block or create erosion on the shoreline measured at mean high tide or alter the characteristics of the intertidal marine environment; xiv. Alter, dredge, fill or penetrate by drilling, the ocean floor within the jurisdiction of the city; or xv. Alter any land area which has previously experienced massive downslope movement, so as to reactivate or create conditions which could lead to the reactivation of downslope movement. With the exception of lot coverage, the project will not propose any activities that are contrary to the provisions of the OC-1 District. The OC-1 performance criteria recommend no more than 10% coverage (criterion i), while CUP 23 allows 30% coverage on downslope lots such as the subject property, and the project proposes 28.5% coverage. As shown in Table 1 below in Major Grading Permit criterion no. 1, none of the existing properties in the immediate neighborhood are consistent with this performance criterion. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed project is generally consistent with the performance criteria of the OC-1 District, as they have been enforced in the past in this area. Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3): -The purpose of the OC-3 District is to preserve, protect and maintain land and water areas, structures and other improvements which are of significant value because of their recreational, aesthetic and scenic qualities, as defined in the Visual Aspects portion of the General Plan and the Corridors Element of the Coastal Specific Plan; preserve, protect and maintain significant views and vistas from major public view corridors and public lands and waters within the City which characterize the City's appearance as defined in the Visual Aspects portion of the General Plan and the Corridors Element of the Coastal Specific Plan; ensure that site planning, grading and landscape techniques, as well as improvement planning, design and construction will preserve, protect and enhance the visual character of the City's predominant land forms, urban form, vegetation and other distinctive features, as identified in the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan; and preserve, protect and maintain significant views of and from slope areas within the community which characterize the City's dominant land form appearance. Projects within the OC-3 District are subject to review for consistency with specified performance criteria to ensure that they will not: i. Result in the change in elevation of the land or construction of any improvement which would block, alter or impair major views, vistas or viewsheds in existence from designated view corridors, view sites or view points at the dates of adoption of the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan in such a way as to materially and irrevocably alter the quality of the view as to arc (horizontal and vertical), primary orientation or other characteristics; ii. Cause the removal or significant alteration of structural focal points and natural focal points, as defined and designated in the General Plan; iii. Cause the mass and finish grading or any topographic alteration which results in uniform, geometrically terraced building sites which are contrary to the natural land forms, which would substantially detract from the scenic and visual quality of the City, which would be contrary to the grading criteria contained in Section , .. 1-39 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) or which would substantially change the natural characteristics of a drainage course, identified natural vegetation or wildlife habitat area; iv. Create site plans, building or other improvement designs which would result in other significant changes to the natural topography or which would prevent or hinder the use of naturalized minimum grading techniques to restore an area to its natural contours; v. Grade any area or remove vegetation from such an area without replacing such areas with properly drained, impervious surfaces or suitable vegetation within six months of the commencement of such activities; vi. Propose the use of any vegetative materials which are not compatible with the visual, climatic, soil and ecological characteristics of the City or which require excessive water; vii. Create a cut or embankment with a slope greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1) and more than fifteen feet in total elevation which is located adjacent to a publicly maintained right-of-way or area unless an agreement with the City for the vegetation and perpetual maintenance of such slope at no cost to the City is executed and bonded; and viii. Result in changes in topography or the construction of improvements which would block, alter or otherwise materially change significant views, vistas and viewshed areas available from major private residential areas of the community which characterize the visual appearance, urban form and economic value of these areas. All proposed improvements will be tucked into the existing slope and located substantially lower than the street level (Vista Del Mar). As such, no major views, vistas or viewsheds identified in the General Plan would be impacted by_ the proposed project since none of the improvements will be visible from the street level. Therefore, as conditioned, the proposed residence will meet the criterion established in the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District, and this finding can be met. 6. Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed above which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed. Staff recommends imposing a number of conditions of approval to ensure the consistency of the project with the Seac/iff Hills Development Guidelines, the NCCP preserve and the OC-1 and OC-3 overlay control districts. Therefore, Staff believes that this finding can be made for the proposed project. For all of the above-mentioned reasons, Staff believes that the requested conditional use permit revision is warranted. 1-40 Major Grading Permit Pursuant to Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040, a Major Grading Permit is required for projects that result in an excavation, fill or combination thereof, in excess of 50yd 3 • Since a total of 5,312yd 3 of grading is proposed, a Major Grading Permit is required. Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040(E) 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; The primary use of the subject lot is residential as identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning map. As discussed in the 'Background' section of this report, the Planning Commission approved a project on the subject property in 2008. The project was initially larger, requesting 1,988yd3 -of excavation (no fill) for the construction of an 11,760ft2, two- story split-level single-family residence with a basement and an 800ft2 detached garage, resuiting in a total structure size of 12,560ft2. At the initial public hearing, the Planning Commission expressed concerns with neighborhood compatibility, particularly with regards to the bulk and mass resulting from the design of the new residence and with the size of the proposed residence and continued the item to the next public meeting. As a result, the applicant reduced the structure size from a total of 12,560ft2 to 9,225ft2 by eliminating the below grade basement, thereby decreasing the grading quantity from 1,988yd3 to 1,850yd3 and made additional fa9ade changes. With these modifications, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2008-48 (4-2 vote, with V.C. Lewis and Commissioner Knight dissenting). Despite what happened in the past, the same architect, now representing a different property owner, is proposing a development project more intensive than what was approved in 2008. Table 1 below compares the structure sizes, grading quantities and lot coverages of City approved neighboring lots, previously approved project on the subject lot and the proposed project. Table 1 Address Vista Del Mar 2902 Approved 1996 1989 2003 2007 1987 1999 1982 2008 6,365 5,797 7,204 7,348 7,380 5,286 7,875 9,225 11,686 1,106 43% (30% max) 397 34% (30% max) 561 37% (30% max) 1,899 33% (25% max) 1,421 30% (30% max) 58 28% (25% max) 805 25% (25% max) 2,000 28% (30% max) . )i,~-:12 28.5% (30% max As evidenced in the table above, the approved structure sizes of Vista Del Mar properties ranges between 5,286ft2 and 9,225ft2 , while the grading quantity ranges between 58yd 3 and ,. 1-41 2,000yd 3 • The proposed structure size of 11,686ft2 and grading quantity of 5,312yd 3 significantly exceeds what was previously approved for the Vista Del Mar properties. More specifically, the basement that was eliminated in the past to address the Planning Commission's neighborhood compatibility concerns has been added back with the proposed project. Additionally, while the grading area was limited to the building footprint and the swimming pool in the previously approved project, the proposed project involves improvement of a large area in the rear for a lawn/patio area, necessitating additional grading. Staff feels that the proposed project is excessive, necessitating grading quantities beyond what is necessary for the permitted use of the lot. Therefore, this criterion cannot be met. 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties; The proposed grading is for a new residence within the City's permitted height requirements of 16'/30'. Additionally, the new residence and garage will be tucked into the existing slope, thereby, lowering the building footprint. The ridgeline of the detached garage will be lower than the existing grade while the ridgeline of the residence will only be few feet above the existing grade. As a result, all improvements will be lower than the street level (Vista Del Mar} and therefore will not be visible from Vista Del Mar and will not significantly affect views from neighboring properties. Therefore, this criterion can be met. 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural; The existing "natural" contours of the project site are largely the result of past grading for the development of the Seacliff Hills neighborhood and the construction of the existing street by the developer, and past grading to accommodate the Palos Verdes Drive East roadway below. However, while the previously approved project altered approximately half of the tot, the proposed project alters what appears to be two-thirds of the lot. Staff feels that the proposed basement addition, which was eliminated in the previously approved project and the expansive rear yard patio improvements result in excessive grading that does not minimize disturbance to the existing contours. Therefore, Staff feels that this criterion cannot be met. 4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography; As mentioned above, the existing "natural" contours of the project site are largely the result of tract grading in the past. There are no significant natural topographic features that would be disturbed by the -proposed grading. However, nearly two-thirds of the lot will be altered as a result of the proposed project, while the preYiously approved project was limited to what appeared to be half for the largest residence in the neighborhood. Staff feels that the proposed grading quantity and area is excessive and therefore, this criterion cannot be met. 1-42 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character; As described in Grading Permit finding nos. 1, 3 and 4 above, Staff feels that altering nearing two-thirds of the lot to accommodate a new residence and ancillary improvements beyond what was approved in 2008 are excessive and not compatible with the neighborhood character as described below. "Neighborhood character" is defined to consider the existing characteristics of an area, including: a) Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures; The immediate neighborhood generally comprises of 20-closest homes from the subject property. However, the subject lot is within a newer residential tract (Tract No. 32991} with stricter guidelines that applies to 11 properties only within this tract. Of these 11 parcels, 8 properties obtained City approvals for development, of which 7 have been constructed. Therefore, for the purposes of this finding, the immediate neighborhood consists of the 7 developed properties on Vista Del Mar. This is the same neighborhood compatibility analysis used in the previously approved project for this site. Table 2 below compares these properties, including lot size, structure size, and number of stories. Table 2 Address No. of Sto11i.~s 13,550 6,365 2 17,250 5,797 2 18,680 7,204 2 23,940 7,348 3 29,030 7,380 2 22,430 5,286 2902 Approved 62,291 9,225 2 3 As evidenced in Table 2 above, the average structure size is 6,751ft2, with the largest approved structure as 9,225ft2. Interestingly, the largest structure size of 9,225ft2 was granted for the subject property in 2008, but was never constructed. The structure size of 9,225ft2 was a result of reducing the original structure size of 11, 760ft2 based on Planning Commission's concerns with neighborhood compatibility by eliminating the basement area entirely. The proposed project is generally the same as the previous proposal except that it · re-added the basement (3,249ft2) and a new detached pool restroom; resulting in a total structure size of 11,686ft2 • Although the extra square footage is primarily for a below-grade basement area, Staff feels that the Planning Commission already allowed for the largest structure size in the neighborhood in 2008 because of the site's location, size and topography. As such, re-adding the basement results in a structure size which is nearly double the average and is 21% larger than the largest approved structure size of 9,225ft2 1-43 does not appear to be compatible with the neighborhood character. Additionally, while the previous proposal was for 1,850yd3 of grading to alter nearly half the lot, the proposed project involves 5,312yd 3 of grading to grade nearly two-thirds of the lot. Although the lot coverage increase of 0.5% from 28% to 28.5% seems minimal, the amount of grading is over double what was previously approved and as a result excessive. It should be noted that lot coverage is calculated differently in the Seacliff Hills community than it is elsewhere in the City. In addition to the building footprint and driveway/parking areas, all other surface improvements are included as lot coverage, as are any unimproved areas that are disturbed by site grading but not restored to the pre-construction topography. Therefore, it is Staff's opinion that the proposed project does not appear to be in scale with the surrounding residences. b) Architectural styles, including fa~ade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials; and As mentioned above, the immediate neighborhood is comprised mostly of two-story homes. They have mainly been built as individual custom homes over the past twenty years. The existing homes exhibit a wide range of contemporary architectural styles and exterior finishes, with no single predominant style. As such, any architectural style would blend in with the neighborhood and would not appear out of character. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed style of the residence contributes positively to the diversity of styles in the immediate neighborhood. In terms of bulk and mass, the upper floor is stepped back horizontally from the first floor and is utilized as a balcony. The facades incorporate a variety of finish materials and elements that enhance the general articulation of the facades and further reduce their apparent bulk and mass. Furthermore, the main ridgelines of the new house are consistent with the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines in that they are pitched and parallel. with the natural terrain. As such, Staff believes that the project is consistent w•th the immediate neighborhood in terms of its apparent bulk and mass. c) Front, side and rear yard setbacks. According to the Development Code, structures in the RS-1 district shall maintain minimum 20' front, 1 O' side and 20' rear setbacks. The proposed project meets or exceeds these minimum setbacks on all sides. This is consistent with the existing pattern of development in the neighborhood. As such, Staff does not believe that the project will deviate from the established pattern of setbacks in the immediate neighborhood. Based on the discussion above, the proposed grading and related construction is not compatible with the scale of the surrounding residences, and therefore this criterion cannot be met. 6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas; The proposed grading does not inv0lve a new residential tract and therefore this criterion does not apply. ,/ 1-44 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: 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, safet and welfare b) Maximum 35% steepness, unless next to a finished slopes driveway where 67% steepness is Yes ermitted c) Maximum depth Except for the excavation of a of cut or fill basement or cellar, a fill or cut not exceeding 5' depth, unless based upon a finding that unusual No topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessa d) Restricted No grading on slopes over 50% Yes rad in areas stee ness e) Retaining walls One 8'-tall upslope wall (unless in No front ard or street side setback One 3%'-tall downslo e wall No One 3%'-tall up-or downslope wall No in each side ard One 5'-tall up-or downslope wall No ad· a cent to drivewa Retaining walls within building Yes foot rint ma exceed 8' f) Driveways 20% maximum slope permitted, with a single 10'-long section up to Yes 22% 67% slop~s permitted adjacent to Yes drivewa s ,, 1-45 Based on the table above, the proposed project does not meet standards (c) and (e). With regards to standard (c), the project may deviate from this standard (max. depth of cut or fill) provided that "a finding that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary". Staff does not believe there is a special circumstance that makes the proposed depth of cut over 5' reasonable and necessary outside the building footprint. Specifically, the depth of cut in excess of 5' in height is for retaining walls to accommodate additional impervious area beyond what was previously approved in 2008 and which Staff considers excessive. Therefore, the finding for standard (c) cannot be met. However, per Development Code Section 17.76.040.E.10, the Planning Commission may grant a grading permit in excess of standards (c) and (e) upon making the following findings: a) The criteria of subsections 1 through 8 are satisfied; As evidenced in the above discussions, Grading Permit criterion nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 cannot be m.et. Therefore, this finding cannot be met. b) The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in the grading section of the Municipal Code (17.76.040.A); The Development Code §17.76.040 describes the purpose of the Grading Permit as "permitting reasonable development of land, ensuring the maximum preservation of natural scenic character of the area consistent with reasonable economic use of such property, and ensuring that each project complies with all goals and policies of the General Plan". As discussed in previous discussions, the Planning Commission previously approved the largest home with the highest quantity amount of grading for the subject property. The applicant is now requesting approval for improvements significantly beyond what was previously approved, altering nearly what appears to be two-thirds of the property. As such, Staff believes that granting retaining wall heights in excess of the Code's limitations beyond what was previously approved in 2008 is not consistent with reasonable economic use of the subject property. Therefore, this finding cannot be met. c) Departure from the standards in subsection 9 of this section will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; and Granting approval to allow retaining wall heights and depth of cuts in excess of the Code limitations for improvements beyond what was approved in 2008 would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other neighboring properties because Staff believes these improvements are excessive. More specifically, the Planning Commission previously approved the largest home with the highest quantity of grading in 2008. Therefore, any requests to significantly increase the scope of work would be excessive and beyond what has been allowed for other neighboring properties and this finding cannot be met. d) Departure from the standards of subsection 9 of this section will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property. Allowing taller retaining walls and increased depths of cut would not be detrimental to public safety nor to other· properties because the City Geologist and Building & Safety Division review and approval would be required with series of inspections throughout the 1-46 construction. Therefore, this finding can be met. e) Notice of 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. Based on the Planning Commission's decision, appropriate parties will be notified and therefore, this finding can be met. Minor Exception Permit When combined with a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall, the total height of a fence or waif may not exceed 8', as measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed 6', as measured from grade on the higher side (17.76.030.C.1.b.iii). Additionally, fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area are limited to 3.5' in height (RPVDC 17.76.030.C.1.a.i). The Planning Commission may grant Minor Exception Permits authorizing a height increase to a fence, wall or hedge, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front setback area which does not exceed 11.5' in height as measured from grade on the lower side and 6' in height as measured from grade on the higher side. Also, Minor Exception Permits authorizing fences, wall and hedges within the front yard setback can be granted up to 6' in height. Since the applicant is proposing a 7.5' tall combination wall (4' retaining with a 3.5' guardrail on top) around the south perimeter of the pool deck area and a 6' tall entry gate/fencing along the front property line, a Minor Exception Permit is required to exceed the Code limit of 6' and 3.5' in height, respectively. The proposed entry gates/fencing up to 6' in height along the front property line also requires approval of a Minor Exception Permit to exceed the Code limit of 3.5'. The Planning Commission may grant a Minor Exception Permit only upon finding that: 1. The requested minor exception is warranted by practical difficulties; or 2. The requested minor exception is warranted by an unnecessary hardship; or 3. The requested minor exception is necessary to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of the Development Code. Proposed 7 .5' tall combination wall in excess of Code allowed maximum of 6' -As described in the previous Grading Permit criteria, Staff feels that the proposed grading beyond what was granted in 2008 is excessive. More specifically, the 2008 approval allowed for 1,850yd3 of grading for the largest two-story residence in the neighborhood, a detached garage and a pool area in the rear yard with minimal pool deck area, which resulted in altering what appeared to be half the lot. The proposed project increases the total structure size by 2,461ft2 and a substantially larger rear yard area. The proposed rear yard area includes a large patio, detached pool restroom, swimming pool, with additional decking and planters beyond. The proposed improvements -appear to alter nearly two-thirds of the lot. Because of the requested fill necessary for the rear yard improvements, a series of retaining walls are proposed, one of which requires a 3.5' tall guardrail on top. Since Staff is recommending denial of the requested Grading Permit based on excessive alteration of the lot, which includes the rear yard improvements, the minor exception for a combination wall in excess of 6' in this area is not warranted. Therefore, Staff does not believe there is a practical difficulty, an unnecessary hardship or an inconsistency with the Development Code that would warrant the requested minor exception. 1-47 Proposed 6' tall entry gate/fencing in excess of Code allowed maximum of 3.5' in height -An entry gate/fencing along the front property line is necessary to adequately secure the site and protect the public from accessing the property. Normally on a flat lot, a 3.5' barrier may visually deter the public from accessing the property and there is no safety hazard if one decides to hop over the fence. However, the subject lot descends from the street all the way down the lot. Additionally, three other properties (2950, 2923, 2903 Vista Del Mar) were granted approvals for similar barriers in the front yard for the same reasons. Therefore, a minor exception to allow a 6' tall entry gate/fencing along the front property line is warranted based on practical difficulties. However, given that this request is ancillary and tied to the larger pending project, Staff is recommending denial to this minor exception request. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Environmental Assessment Staff reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Categorical Exemptions are projects, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and have been exempted from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15303 (Class 3 Exemption) allows one single- family residence in a residential zone. Upon completion of this review, it has been determined that the proposed request is categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). CONCLUSION Based on the discussion above, Staff is not able to make all the necessary findings for the proposed project and recommends that the Planning Commission deny, without prejudice, Case No. ZON2013-00063. . ALTERNATIVES In addition to the Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for Planning Commission's consideration: 1. Identify any issues of concern with Case No. ZON2013-00068, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. 2. Conditionally approve Case No. ZON2013-0068 and direct Staff to prepare an appropriate resolution and conditions of approval for consideration at the next meeting. 3. Conditionally approve with modifications Case No. ZON2013-00068 and direct Staff to prepare an appropriate resolution and conditions of approval for consideration at the next meeting. 4. Deny Case No. ZON2013-00068 with prejudice, and direct Staff to prepare an appropriate resolution for the Planning Commission's consideration at the next meeting. ATTACHMENTS • P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_ 1-48 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITH PREJUDICE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 10,656FT2 SPLIT-STORY RESIDENCE, A 852FT2 DETACHED GARAGE, A 178FT2 DETACHED POOL RESTROOM, A SWIMMING POOL, 5,312YD3 OF RELATED GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OF COMBINATION WALLS UP TO 7.5' IN HEIGHT, RETAINING WALLS UP TO 18.6' IN HEIGHT AND A 6' TALL ENTRY GATE ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF 2902 VISTA DEL MAR. WHEREAS, on July 12, 1977, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 23, establishing a residential planned development (RPD) comprising of Tract Nos. 3257 4, ~2991 and 34834; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1986, the Planning Commission adopted the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines (attached) in recognition of the need for greater sensitivity and design flexibility in the construction of these custom homes. The Guidelines were supplemented on August 23, 1989; and, WHEREAS, on November 25, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2008-48, approving a tract amendment for the adjustment of a "Restricted Use Area" and a Conditional Use Permit Revision (CUP) and Grading Permit (GR) for a new 9,225ft2, two-story, single-family residence with 2,000yd3 of grading for the subject property located at 2902 Vista Del Mar; and, WHEREAS, the applicant (Mr. DiDominicantonio) submitted plans for plan check review, which expired on November 2010 due to inactivity; and, WHEREAS, on February 14, 2013, a different property owner with the same previous architect (AGA Design Group representing Jia Zhang) submitted a new CUP Revision, GP and MEP applications, requesting approval for a new 10,656ft2, two-story, single-family residence, 852ft2 detached garage, 178ft2 detached pool restroom, a swimming pool, construction of walls and entry gate with 5,312yd3 of related grading for the subject property; and, WHEREAS, on March 6, 2013, the project was deemed incomplete based on insufficient information; and, WHEREAS, on September 5, 2013, the project was deemed complete After a series of submittals of additional information; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of. the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, · California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the Planning Commission found no evidence that Case No. ZON2013-00063 will have a significant effect on the envir0nment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 1of4 1-49 WHEREAS, after notice issued on September 5, 2013, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 24, 2013, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project is a request for the following: A. 5,312yd3 of grading on a vacant lot for a new house and accessory structures: a. 4,348yd3 of cut for the residence b. 582yd3 of cut for the detached garage c. 475yd3 of cut and 43yd3 of fill for the rear yard area d. 518yd3 of cut forthe driveway e. 18yd3 of cut and 472yd3 of fill for the rear pool/deck area B. Construct a new 10,656ft2 two-story residence with a below-grade basement and a detached three-car garage: a. 4,088ft2 first floor b. 3,319ft2 second floor c. 3,249ft2 basement d. 852ft2 detached garage C. 178ft2 detached pool restroom and a swimming pool in the rear yard. D. Combination wall (retaining walls with guardrails on top) up to 7.5' in height and retaining walls up to 18.6' in height around the residence and rear patio area as a result of grading. E. 6' tall entry gate/fencing within the front yard setback, where the Code restricts the height to 3.5' maximum. Section 2: Approval of a Major Grading Permit is not warranted because: A. The grading exceeds that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. More specifically, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2008-48, thereby allowing a 9,225ft2 residence with 1,850yd3 of grading for the subject lot. This resulted in the largest approved residence in the neighborhood. The approved structure size and grading quantity were based on reductions to address the Commission's concerns related to neighborhood compatibility. The proposed project is now requesting a larger residence measuring 12,560ft2 in size with 5,312yd3 of grading. This proposal is significantly larger in size, altering more areas of the lot to accommodate more intensive project. The additional basement area which was once eliminated in the prior approval based on neighborhood compatibility concerns and a significantly enlarged rear yard area results in excessive grading than what is necessary for the economic development of the lot. B. The nature of the grading does. not minimize disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are not reasonably natural. More specifically, while the previously approved project altered approximately half of the lot, the proposed project alters what P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_ ·Page 2of4 .~·· 1-50 appears to be two-thirds of the lot. Additionally, the proposed basement addition, which was eliminated in the previously approved project and the expansive rear yard patio improvements result in excessive grading that does not minimize disturbance to the existing contours. C. The grading does not take into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances. More specifically, nearly two-thirds of the lot will be altered as a result of the proposed project, while the previously approved project was limited to what appeared to be half for the largest residence in the neighborhood. The proposed grading quantity and area is excessive for the reasonable development of the lot. D. The grading and/or related construction is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. More specifically, the average structure size is 6,751ft2, with the largest as 9,225ft2 • The largest structure size of 9,225ft2 was granted for the subject property in 2008, but was never constructed. The structure size of 9,225ft2 was a result .of reducing the original structure size of 11, 760ft2 based on Planning Commission's concerns with neighborhood compatibility by eliminating the basement area entirely. The proposed project is generally the same as the previous proposal except that it re- added the basement (3,249ft2 ) and a new detached pool restroom; resulting in a total structure size of 11,686ft2 • Re-adding the basement results in a structure size which is nearly double the average and is 21 % larger than the largest approved structure size of 9,225ft2 , which is not compatible with the neighborhood character. Additionally, while the previous proposal was for 1,850yd3 of grading to alter nearly half the lot, the proposed project involves 5,312yd 3 of grading to grade nearly two-thirds of the lot. Although the lot coverage increase of 0.5% from 28% to 28.5% seems minimal, the amount of grading is over double what was previously approved and as a result excessive. E. The grading does not conform nor can a finding can be made that supports the proposed deviations exceeding the maximum 5' depth of cut; retaining walls in excess of 8' upslope, 3.5' downslope and 5' next to the driveway. Section 3: Approval of a Minor Exception Permit is not warranted because there are no practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or necessity to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of the General Code. More specifically, the proposed grading beyond what was granted in 2008 is excessive. The 2008 approval allowed for 1,850yd3 of grading for the largest two-story residence in the neighborhood, a detached garage and a pool area in the rear yard with minimal pool deck area, which resulted in altering what appeared to be half the lot. The proposed project increases the total structure size by 2,461ft2 and a substantially larger rear yard area. The proposed rear yard area includes a large patio, detached pool restroom, swimming pool, with additional decking and planters beyond. The proposed improvements appear to alter nearly two-thirds of the lot. Because of the requested fill necessary for the rear yard improvements, series of retaining walls are proposed, one of which requires a 3.5' tall guardrail on top. Since the proposed grading which includes the rear yard improvements is excessive, there are no practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or necessity to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of the General Code to warrant combination walls in excess of 6' in height. Section 4: 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 3of4 1-51 P.C. Minutes (November 25, 2008) 1-52 Vice Chairman Lewis moved to approve the Consent Calendar, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2008-47 conditionally approving a revision to the Green Hms Cemetery Master Phm as presented in the Resolution, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (4-1-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting and Chairman Perestam recused. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Tract Map amendment, Conditional Use Permit revision & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00061): 2902 Vista Del Mar Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and the need for the various applications. He explained how the project has been redesigned and modified to attempt to address the concerns of the Planning Commission. He stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight noted the reduction in square footage of the project, and asked how much of the reduction was a result of the removal of the basement. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the majority of the square footage eliminated from the project was the basement area. Commissioner Knight asked if the actual above ground structure size has changed. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the footprint size has not changed. Vice Chairman Lewis noted that in the Commission packet was a real estate ad for the property in which it states everything has been approved and permits can be obtained by the new owners when they desire. He asked if the Planning Department has approved the architectural plans and the Building Department has approved the plans for the property. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that no plans have been approved for the property. Commissioner Knight noted the project has been moved farther to the east thereby ,.· changing the setbacks, and asked if this will affect the nearby habitat noted in the biological report in terms of increased setbacks ·for fuel modification. · Senior Planner Schonborn answered that staff has added condition No. 10 that will address this concern. Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2008 Page 3 1-53 Dominic Didomenicantonio explained that the property is on the market and he'll wait to see what will happen with it. He discussed the new design of the proposed residence and stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that at the previous meeting many of the Commissioners expressed concern with regards to the size of the house. He felt the applicant has made substantial changes to address these concerns and the size of the home is not significantly different than other homes in the neighborhood. He did not think the intention of the applicant to either live in the home or build it and sell it should affect the decision of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to approve staff's recommendation to approve the project, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Knight stated that he had an issue with the size, bulk, and mass of the house at the last hearing and this revision does not change the above ground bulk and mass of the structure. He appreciated the change in the architectural style, as it helps the issue somewhat, however he did not think it was reduced enough for him to recommend approval of the project. He suggested a revision on page 9 for clarification that would say "as depicted in the Site Plan". Commissioner Ruttenberg accepted that revision to the motion, as did Commissioner Tetreault. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed that whether or not the applicant plans to sell the lot is of no relevance, but was concerned that the property was being offered for sale with the misrepresentation that permits can be pulled and plans have been approved. He stated that he could not support the project, as he too felt that it was too large for the neighborhood. Commissioner Tomblin noted that this is a very large lot, and felt that the proposed house fits well on the lot and now blends in well with the neighborhood. He was pleased with the architectural changes made to the design. He stated that he will now be able to support the project. Chairman Perestam was also pleased with the redesign of the project and noted that the three issues of concern he had with the original project have now been addressed. Commissioner Tetreault felt that the square footage and redesign of the house have .. - addressed his concerns with neighborhood compatibility and bulk and mass. He felt that this is a neighborhood of large conspicuous homes that are meant to be seen. The motion to adopt P .C. Resolution 2008-48 thereby approving the Tract Map Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Revision, and Grading Permit was approved, (4-2) with Commissioner Knight and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2008 Page4 1-54 P.C. Minutes (October 14, 2008) 1-55 The motion to adopt P .C. Resolution 2008-37 thereby approving the Height Variation and Grading Permit as presented by staff was approved, (7-0). 5. Tract map Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Revision & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00061 ): 2902 Vista del Mar Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. He acknowledged that this will be the largest structure in the neighborhood, however because it will be tucked into the hillside and not apparent, staff felt that the size was acceptable. He also noted that there is a basement which adds 3,600 square feet to the size of the residence. He also noted that the subject lot is the largest lot in the neighborhood. He stated that staff did a view analysis from the property next door at 2912 Vista Del Mar, and determined that there was not a significant view impairment caused by the proposed new residence. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the proposed project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked staff if any of the other homes in the neighborhood have a basement. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the house recently approved by the Planning Commission has an underground area for the garage. Commissioner Knight asked if there was any consideration given to the possibility of additional fuel modification on the downhill slope to address the new structure. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that situation was looked at by staff and is addressed in the biological report. He also noted that the Fire Department had no issue with the 33 foot clearance. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Domenic DiDomenicantonio (applicant) stated he was available for any questions. Commissioner Knight asked if there was really a need to change the restricted area for the proposed driveway. Mr. DiDomenicantonio answered that there was no need to change the restricted area. He noted that there is no structure proposed in the restricted area. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff if it would be possible to limit the change to the restricted area to what is needed for the driveway only. Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2008 Page 19 ··' 1-56 Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the Planning Commission can change the condition so that the only change to the restricted area is the area needed for the proposed driveway. Director Rojas stated that to address Commissioner Knight's concern regarding the fuel modification, a condition can be added which states no fuel modification is allowed in the preserve, however if there is ever a need for the fuel modification in the preserve the applicant will be responsible for that work and any mitigation to impacts that may be caused by that work. He noted, however that the biology report indicates there should be no impacts in the area under discussion. Commissioner Gerstner was uncomfortable with the design ofthe house. He felt that everything about the house is big and questioned how it will look from Palos Verdes Drive South. Commissioner Tomblin agreed, stating that he cannot support the current design. He felt it was much too big, bulky, and massive and not compatible with the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed that this is too much house for the neighborhood and is in no way compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed that the house is large, however it is being proposed on a very large lot. He therefore was able to support the project. Commissioner Tetreault agreed that the house is massive and bulky, however the neighborhood draws attention to itself with its large, massive homes. However, he felt this house goes one step beyond the others. He also felt that this is a very visible location and the house will be seen from Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive East. Chairman Perestam agreed that this is a very large lot and the house designs on the street are not consistent with each other. He was concerned with the massive look of the house and the view obstruction to the neighbor. He felt that given the size of the lot more effort can be made to minimize this view obstruction. He also questioned why the house is placed so close to the neighbor's side yard. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the Planning Commission just approved a large residence on a lot mainly because most of the structure will be buried into the hillside. He questioned why this one is different. He thought the objection might be more the ,, design of the house, a'nd he did not think that is a reason to oppose the project. Commissioner Gerstner noted that there are design guidelines for the City that would lead one to design a house that generally does not call excessive attention to itself, as this one does. He stated that he is not commenting on the choice of the design, but rather the characteristics that the City tends to steer away from, such as extremely large vertical elements around entrances which draws a lot of attention to the home. Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2008 Page20 1-57 Chairman Perestam re-opened the public hearing. Chairman Perestam asked the applicant if he is receptive to extending the action deadline and, after hearing the concerns of the Planning Commission, if he is receptive to a redesign of the project. Mr. DiDomenicantonio explained that if the basement on the house were to be removed the house would be the same size as the other homes in the neighborhood. He stated that he is open to redesign of the house, but did not think the redesign would change the size of the house. He also noted that because of where he has placed the house, it will not be seen by any of the neighbors. He also stated that he will grant the needed extension. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of November 25, 2008 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). 6. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Variance, Conditional Use Permit1 Grading, and Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2008~00091 ): 28103 Hawthorne Blvd. Senior Planner Schonborn presented a brief staff report, giving a history of the project and explaining the current project He stated that staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission accept additional public testimony and discuss the merits of the project, dose the public hearing, and formulate a recommendation to the City Council on the application package and adopt the appropriate resolution. Commissioner Knight asked staff to explain the convenience store development standards. Senior Planner Schonborn explained the convenience store standards as described in the Code. Steve Kuykendall (representing the applicant) stated that this site has been developed as a neighborhood serving commercial use for approximately 40 years, which pre-dates the incorporation of the City. He felt that as the age of the residents in the community has increased, so has the need for health care. He also felt that the need for the gas , .. station has decreased as the price of fuel has risen, cars have become more fuel efficient, and the older population in the commu'nity uses their cars less and less. He explained the history of the project and the different revisions that have taken place. He felt that changing the use of the property from a gas station to a pharmacy would only improve the area in many ways and would bring the corner into conformity with the adjacent property across the street and in conformity with the current use of the property. Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2008 Page 21 1-58