Loading...
RPVCCA_SR_2011_04_19_11_Appeal_Approval_Cayuse_LaneDate: Subject: PUBLIC HEARING April 19,2011 Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of an Extreme Slope Permit and Site Plan Review for Proposed Additions to the Existing Residence Located at 21 Cayuse Lane (Case No.lON2009-001 08) Subject Property:21 Cayuse Lane 1.Declare the .Hearing Open:Mayor Long 2.Report of Notice Given:City Clerk Morreale 3.Staff Report &Recommendation:Associate Planner Mikhail 4.Public Testimony: Appellant:Kathy and Hazel Oi Santo Applicant:Russ Barto (Architect) 5.Council Questions: 6.Rebuttal: 7.Declare Hearing Closed:Mayor Long 8.Council Deliberation: 9.Council Action: W:\A.GENDA\Public Hearing Formats\public hearing format Council-Form Appeal 21 Cayuse Lane.doc 11-1 CrTYOF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: DATE: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS,COMM~4vELOPMENT DIRECTOR -0""--- APRIL 19,2011 SUBJECT:APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 21 CAYUSE LANE (CASE NO.ZON2009-001 08)09- REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~ Project Manager:Leza Mikhail,Associate Plan@ RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and adopt C.C.Resolution No.2011-_,thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision and conditionally approving the requested Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit at 21 Cayuse Lane (Case No.ZON2009-001 08). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The property owner at 21 Cayuse Lane is proposing to add 2,105 square feet to the existing two-story residence and detached garage.The proposed project was approved by the Director and the Director's decision was subsequently appealed to the Planning Commission by two neighbors taking the position that the proposed project requires the approval of a Height Variation Permit so that their view concerns could be addressed. The Planning Commission agreed with Staff's original determination that the subject property is a "sloping"lot and therefore the proposed additions do not require approval of a Height Variation application,which includes a view impairment analysis,because the residence/additions are proposed to be constructed within the 16'/30'"by-right" building envelope.The Appellants'subsequently appealed the Planning Commission's 11-2 decision to the City Council and continue to assert the position that the proposed project should be subject to a view impact analysis through a Height Variation application.Staff is of the opinion that no new evidence has been submitted by the Appellants'to substantiate their argument,and therefore recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's determination to approve the subject Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit. BACKGROUND On November 29,2010,the Community Development Director approved Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit (ZON2009-001 08)applications to allow the construction of a 512 square foot upper level addition,1,092 square foot entry level addition and 501 square foot lower level addition.The project also included the construction of a new deck off the proposed new kitchen and a deck for trash cans, near the existing garage.In accordance with the Municipal Code,a Notice of Decision for the approval was sent to all interested parties. On December 13,2010,(Ms.Hazel Di Santo),the property owner of 17 Cayuse Lane, and her daughter (Ms.Rose Marie Di Santo),property owner of 13 Cayuse Lane filed an appeal of the Director's decision.The Di Santos'requested that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's approval of the Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit due to view impairment concerns. On March 8,2011,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.Based on a determination that the subject property is considered a "sloping" lot per the RPV Development Code,the Planning Commission upheld the Director's decision and approved the Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit. On March 23,2011,attorney Steven E.Wohn representing Ms.Hazel Di Santo, property owner of 17 Cayuse Lane,and Ms.Rose Marie Di Santo,property owner of 13 Cayuse Lane,submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision.The appeal letter stated that the grounds of appeal were set forth in the previous two letters to the Planning Commission (attached)and any further documentation by the Appellant prior to the City Council hearing for said appeal.As of the preparation of this report, Staff did not receive any additional information. On March 28,2011,Staff mailed notices for a City Council appeal hearing to 60 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property,providing a 15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns.In addition,a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on March 31,2011.The public comment period expired on April 14,2011.Staff notified the Appellants and their attorney on a few occasions that additional information would need to be submitted to staff by Monday, April 11,2011,in order to be addressed in the Staff Report.Aside from the appeal letter,Staff received no additional commentary from the public or the appellant. 11-3 DISCUSSION The appellants submitted an appeal letter to the City Council which refers back to issues raised in their letters of appeal of the Director's original determination to the Planning Commission dated December 13,2010 and February 27,2011 (attached).In the Planning Commission appeal letters,the appellants assert that in approving the project at 21 Cayuse Lane,the Director used the incorrect section of the Municipal Code to determine the maximum allowable height permitted for the proposed additions. The appellants'note that a determination of approval was made in error as the review and approval of a Height Variation permit was not required of the applicant.More specifically,the Appellants disagree with Staff's and the Planning Commission's determination that a maximum allowable "by-right"height of 30'-0",as measured from the lowest grade covered by the structure to the highest ridge line of the structure, applies to the proposed hillside project and that the proposed project should require the approval of a Height Variation permit.Said permit would subject the proposed project to additional findings,including but not limited to,view impairment and privacy impact analyses.All points made by the appellants were thoroughly addressed by Staff in the attached March 8,2011 Planning Commission Staff Report (attached). In March 2011,the'Planning Commission considered all evidence presented to them for an appeal of the Director's decision of approval.After considering the various sections of the Development Code referenced in the March 8,2011 Planning Commission Staff Report,the Planning Commission agreed that the subject lot is a "sloping"lot,whereby primary residential structures are permitted to - - - - measure 16'-0"from the average elevation of ~i the setback line abutting the street of access !~ to the ridgeline or the highest point of the _....... structure,and 30'-0",as measured from the lowest foundation adjacent to the structure to the highest point of the structure (see Figure 2). The Planning Commission further determined that the subject property was not a "pad" lot,as defined by the Development Code,with an applicable "building pad"due to the fact that the existing main residence is located on a gradual slope that exceeds 5%. More specifically,the Planning Commission,noted that according to the Development Code,a "pad"lot must have a "building pad"which is defined as "any portion of a lot with a slope of five percent or less that exists naturally or has been graded to fonn a contiguous level area to accommodate a main building"(Section 17.96.320 of RPVDC). As the existing main residence was constructed as a split-level home on a sloping lot, whereby the front of the residence appears as a single-story structure and the rear of the residence appears as a multi-story structure,the residence and proposed additions would be permitted within the 16'/30'"by-right"building envelope for "sloping lots." As such,the Planning Commission ultimately agreed with Staff's determinations and upheld the Director's original approval,thereby approving a Site Plan Review 11-4 application allowing 2,105 square feet of new additions to the existing residence and an Extreme Slope Permit to allow 74 square feet of a new deck to extend beyond the top of an extreme slope.The Planning Commission further agreed with Staff and found that the proposed additions would be compatible with the immediate neighborhood and would comply with the applicable standards of the City's Development Code.As the subject property was determined by Staff and subsequently the Planning Commission to be a "sloping"lot,and the applicant is permitted to construct an addition within the permitted 16'/30'building envelope,a Height Variation application is not required and conversely an analysis of the project's view impacts is not part of the review process. With regard to the appellants'original concern with existing foliage that obstructed views of the Queen's Necklace,as noted in the March 8,2011 Planning Commission Staff Report,the foliage in question was removed by the property owner.As such,the foliage on 21 Cayuse is no longer relevant to this appeal. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the City Council to consider: 1)Uphold the appeal,thereby overturning the Planning Commission's decision to conditionally approve Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit Case No.ZON2009- 00108 without prejudice,and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next City Council meeting with an appropriate C.C.Resolution;or 2)Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project,provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project,and continue the public hearing to a date certain. FISCAL IMPACT The appellant has paid the applicable appeal fees,as established by resolution of the City Council,therefore there are no fiscal impacts that would result from this request. ATTACHMENTS •Draft City Council Resolution No.2011-_ •City Council Letter of Appeal (received March 23,2011) •Rebuttal Letter from the Applicant (dated March 24,2011) •Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-12 •Planning Commission Staff Report (March 8,2011) o Includes Staff Report to Director (November 4,2011) •P.C.Minutes (March 8,2011) 11-5 Draft C.C.Resolution No.2011- 11-6 RESOLUTION NO.2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE,WITH CONDITIONS,SITE PLAN REVIEW AND EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT CASE NO.ZON2009-00108 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 512 SQUARE FOOT UPPER LEVEL ADDITION,1,092 SQUARE FOOT ENTRY LEVEL ADDITION 501 SQUARE FOOT LOWER LEVEL ADDITION,AND NEW DECK,A PORTION OF WHICH EXTENDS BEYOND THE TOP OF AN EXTREME SLOPE,ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 CAYUSE LANE. WHEREAS,on March 24,2009,the applicant formally submitted Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit requesting approval to construct 2,105 square feet of additional area to the existing hillside residence and new deck,a portion of which would extend beyond the top of an extreme slope;and, WHEREAS,.on April 16,2009,April 20,2009,July 12,2010 and on September 7, 2010,the applicant submitted revisions;and, WHEREAS,upon submittal of the required information,construction of the temporary silhouette and submittal of the silhouette certification form,the case was deemed complete by Staff on September 14,2010.Subsequently,a notice of application was mailed to 60 property owners within a 500'radius of the subject site and the notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on September 23,2010;and, WHEREAS,on November 11,2010,the project applicant granted a one-time 90-day extension to the Permit Streamlining Act to allow staff additional time to assess the project in response to certain comment letters received from Rose Marie Di Santo and Hazel Di Santo;and, WHEREAS,the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),under Article 19,Section 15303(e)(2)(additions)of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA.Specifically,the project includes the minor addition and alteration to an existing structure that will not result in a structure that exceeds 10,000 square feet.Further,the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available and the project is not located in an environmentally sensitive area. As such,this project has been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment;and, WHEREAS,on November 29,2010,the Community Development Director reviewed and approved Case No.ZQN2009-00108,and a Notice of Decision was prepared and distributed to all interested parties;and, WHEREAS,on December 13,2010,within fifteen (15)days following the Director's Notice of Decision,an attorney representing Rose Marie and Hazel Di Santo (hereinafter 11-7 referred to as Appellants),filed an appeal to the Planning Commission requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's approval of Case No.ZON2009-001 08;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 8,2011,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;and, WHEREAS,following the conclusion of the public hearing,the Planning Commission upheld the Director's decision;and, WHEREAS,on March 23,2011,within fifteen (15)days following the Planning Commission's Notice of Decision,an attorney representing Rose Marie and Hazel Di Santo (hereinafter referred to as Appellants),filed an appeal to the City Council requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's approval of Case No.ZON2009. 00108;and, WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 19,2011,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;and, NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:The City Council determines that the subject property,21 Cayuse Lane,is a "sloping"lot whereby a primary residential structure is permitted to measure 16'- 0"in height,as measured from the average elevation of the setback line abutting the street of access to the highest point of the structure,and 30'-0"in height,as measured from the lowest foundation adjacent to the structure to the highest point of the structure through review and approval of a Site Plan Review Permit.The subject property is not considered a "pad"lot,which is defined to be a lot with a "building pad",due to the fact that the existing residence is developed as a split-level home and is located on a gradual slope that exceeds a 5%gradient.Furthermore,a "building pad"is defined as "any portion of a lot with a slope of five percent or less that exists naturally or has been graded to fonn a contiguous level area to accommodate a main building."Due to the fact that the existing structure was developed as a split level home on a sloping lot and the proposed additions will be constructed within the allowed 16'/30'building envelope for "sloping"lots,a Height Variation Permit with a required view impact analysis is not applicable. Section 2:The City Council determines that a 12"diameter view-impairing tree located on the south eastern slope at 21 Cayuse Lane was removed in February 2011 and does not require further consideration. Section 3:The City Council determines that the subject property is located within the RS-2 Zoning District,whereby the maximum allowable lot coverage is 40%.Including the square footage of the new building footprint (3,012 square feet)and the driveway and impervious surface areas (3,642 square feet),the total lot coverage for the property would Resolution No.2011- Page 211-8 be 6,654 square feet,or 33%of the 20,012 square foot sloping lot.As such,the proposed project complies with the allowable lot coverage in the RS-2 Zoning District. Section 4:The City Council determines that the proposed project would not require review and approval of a Grading Permit due to the fact that the proposed quantity of grading is 18 cubic yards.According to Section 17.76.040(C)of the Municipal Code,a Grading Permit is only required for foundations/caissons that exceed 10 feet in depth, grading that exceeds 20 cubic yards of cut and/or fill and grading that exceeds a depth of 3'-0".The majority of the proposed additions are proposed to be located on a level portion or a raised foundation and would not require grading beyond what is necessary for the excavation of the foundation.Furthermore,with regard to soil stability,the Applicant will be required to submit a geology report upon submittal into Building and Safety Plan Check to ensure that the addition will not create a geologic hazard. Section 5:The City Council determines that the Site Plan Review to allow the new addition and other ancillary site improvements is approved subject to the conditions of approval which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A"and incorporated herein by this reference because: A.The proposed residence and resulting appearance will not significantly change the appearance of the immediate neighborhood,and the residence will be compatible with the immediate neighborhood.The proposed additions and residence will comply with the development code standards for sloping lots and will be constructed within the 16'/30'building envelope.The proposed additions will not be accessed by any easements located along the east side of the property.The architectural style, roofing material,exterior finishes,and building materials will be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood.Although the resulting 5,440 square foot residence will be 2,159 square feet greater than the neighborhood average,the size of the proposed residence is found to be within the range of the homes in the immediate neighborhood,which range from 2,351 square feet to 5,529 square feet.Further, the single-story configuration of the proposed residence as seen from the street mitigates the potential concern for creating a bulky and massive appearance. Lastly,the building setbacks from the corresponding property lines are found to be comparable with the residences found in the immediate neighborhood,with a 15'-0" north side yard setback and 35'-0"south side yard setback. Section 6:The City Council determines that the Extreme Slope Permit to allow deck,a portion of which extends beyond the top of an extreme slope is approved subject to the conditions of approval,which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A"and incorporated herein by this reference because: A.The site cannot reasonably accommodate the deck except on an extreme slope. The proposed deck is intended to be used as an outdoor eating and barbecue area adjacent to the kitchen.Although there are other areas on the site that could accommodate a table and portable barbecue,those areas are far from the kitchen and are located on the lower floor area.Proximity to the kitchen is important for Resolution No.2011- Page 311-9 transporting food back and forth,and there is no other location on site that offers that proximity.Additionally,decks that extend over extreme slopes are common in the surrounding hillside neighborhood.If the applicant reduced the size of the deck so that no portions of the deck could extend beyond the top of the previously existing extreme slope,the deck would only be 5'-0"to 7'-0"feet wide and could not reasonably accommodate an outside table.Furthermore,there is an existing deck located in the same area whereby a portion of the deck will be removed for the construction of the kitchen. B.Granting the Extreme Slope Permit for the new deck will not result in any significant adverse effect on neighboring properties,including view impairment,visual impact, slope instability,increased runoff and other adverse impacts.As part of the building and safety review of the deck and associated supporting walls,the applicant will need to obtain approval from the City's Geologist ensuring that the new deck and support walls will not create a negative geological impact to the area.Additionally, the applicant will need to satisfy the City's Building Official ensuring that the deck has been engineered and constructed in a manner that meets the requirements of the Building Code.Further,in addition to the structural aspects of the deck,Staff conducted a view and visual analysis of the proposed deck,and concluded that the deck would nave no adverse impact to views as seen from neighboring properties .. The deck will not be easily visible from other properties due to the topography in the surrounding neighborhood and existing foliage on the subject property that obstructs visibility of the deck. C.Granting the Extreme Slope Permit will not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences.The proposed deck would only potentially affect the property to the north,at 28438 Cayuse Lane.The residential pad for the neighbors property is over 30 feet below the subject property.Although a portion of the neighbors rear yard and spa will be more visible from the northeast portion of the proposed deck,the views into the neighbor's property will be no more of an infringement than existing views into the neighbor's yard from other areas of the subject residence.In fact,the views from the proposed deck into the neighbor's backyard will be less of an infringement than views from the existing living room and deck off the rear of the subject house. D.Any disturbance of the slope will be insignificant.The foundation of the proposed deck would be located at the top of the extreme slope.Furthermore,the construction associated with the deck and support walls will be required to be reviewed by the City Geologist and Building Official. E.Granting the Extreme Slope Permit is consistent with the General Plan,Coastal Specific Plan or any other application plan.According to the General Plan,"It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment;to enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods;and to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the Resolution No.2011- Page 411-10 community."Through the approval of an Extreme Slope Permit for the proposed deck,the project will adequately serve the needs of the property owner by allowing him/her to have a sufficient,functional,useable and adequate access to outdoor eating area from the kitchen area of the home.Additionally,the project will not have a negative impact to the visual character and physical quality of the existing neighborhood. Section 7:The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2011. Mayor Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles )ss City or Rancho Palos Verdes ) I,Carla Morreale,the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,do hereby certify that the above Resolution No.2011-_was dUly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 19,2011. City Clerk Resolution No.2011- Page 511-11 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval Case No.ZON2009·00108 (Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit General Conditions 1.Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check,the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement,in writing,that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below.Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90)days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2.Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check,the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works for any curb cuts, dumpsters in the street or any other temporary or permanent improvements within the public rights-of-way. 3.Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations,or any Federal,State,County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified,all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4.This approval is for the construction of 512 square feet to the upper level of the home,1,092 square feet to the entry level of the home and 501 square feet to the lower level of the home.The project also includes the construction of two new decks along the north side of the residence whereby 74 square feet of the deck adjacent to the new kitchen would extend a maximum of 5 feet beyond the top of an extreme slope.The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions.Otherwise,any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision to the Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit Case No.ZON2009-001 08 by the Director and shall require new and separate environmental review. 5.The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or,if not addressed herein,shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code,including but not limited to height,setback and lot coverage standards. 6.Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. Resolution No.2011- Page 611-12 7.If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one hundred eighty days (180)of the final effective date of the Notice of Decision,approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless,prior to expiration,a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Director and approved by the Director. 8.In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department,the stricter standard shall apply. 9.Unless otherwise designated in these conditions,all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of the Notice of Decision. 10.The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes.Such excess material may include,but not be limited to:the accumulation of debris,garbage,lumber,scrap metal,concrete asphalt,piles of earth,salvage materials,abandoned or discarded furniture,appliances or other household fixtures. 11.Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,Monday through Saturday,with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.Trucks shall not park,queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM,Monday through Saturday,in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. 12.Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications,the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40%lot coverage (29.2%proposed)and the following setbacks from the applicable property lines: Front 20 feet (20 feet proposed) Side 5 feet (5 feet proposed) Rear 15 feet (70+feet proposed) 13.Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 14.A minimum 2-car garage shall be maintained,with each required parking space being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth,with a minimum of 7 feet of vertical clearance. 15.Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of Resolution No.2011- Page 711-13 a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. 16.All landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques,either through screening and/or watering. 17.All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure,safe,neat and orderly manner.Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official.Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. 18.The proposed addition shall not exceed 16'in height,as measured from the average elevation of the front setback line (84 feet)to the top of the highest ridgeline and 30'as measure from the lowest adjacent grade to the top of the highest ridgeline.Specifically,the proposed addition will result in a maximum height of 10'-11"as measured from the average elevation of the setback line covered by the structure (84.22')to the highest ridgeline (95.14')and 30'-0"as measured from the lowest grade covered by structure (65.14')to the top of the highest ridgeline (95.14'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED.A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ROOF FRAMING/SHEETING INSPECTION. 19.All applicable permits required by the Building and Safety Division shall be obtained by the applicant prior to the commencement of construction. Extreme Slope Permit 20.The deck shall not extend more than a maximum of 5'-0"beyond the top of the extreme slope (greater than 35%slope). Resolution No.2011- Page 811-14 City Council Letter of AQPeal (received March 23,2011) 11-15 PlANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT RECEIVED MAR 23 2011LawOfficesofStevenE.Wohn 800 S.Pacific Coast Highway Suite 318 Redondo Beach,CA.90277 Telephone:310.534.0005 Facsimile:310.534.0006 Email:HYPERLINK ..mailto:stevewohnlaw@msn.com ..stevewohnlaw@msn.com March 22,2011 Via Personal Delivery and Facsimile Joel Rojas,AlCP Community Development Director c/o Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Re:Amended Appeal ofthe Decision ("NOD") Case No:ZON2009-00108 Location:21 Cayuse Lane (the "Property") Property Owner:Mr.&Mrs.Van Der Zalm (Coleman) Subject:Section 17.02.040 of City Code and related section "View Preservation and Restoration" Dear Mr.Joel Rojas: Please be advised this office represents Ms.Hazel Di Santo and Ms.Rose Marie Di Santo who live at 17 and 13 Cayuse Lane in Rancho Palos Verdes.This matter has been the subject of an appeal since December 13,2010 was heard by the Planning Commission on March 8 where the appeal was rejected. This matter is now being amended in anticipation of the upcoming City Council meeting hearing for April,20 II.It is intended to supplement the existing appeal and extend it without waiving any of the previously-stated grounds as set forth in the Original Appeal of December 13,201 1,the Amendment to Appeal dated Febmary 28,2011 and heard on 11-16 March 8,2011. The grounds ofthe Appeal are set forth in the prior two letters referenced above and any further docwnentation by the Appellant prior to the City Council hearing at which this matter is to be heard. The filing fee is attached hereto in the amOlmt of$2,255.00 as required. Sincerely, ~l,J)h~/v·r Steven E.Wohn Attorney for Appellants Hazel DiSanto And Rose Marie DiSanto PAGE PAGE 1 .'1 Tr-,q c.:1-1 tJ\~~~ I) 2..') 3) 11-17 / December 13,2010 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY Joel Rojas,AICP Community Development Director clo Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning,Building and Code Enforcement RE:Appeal of November 29,2010 City ofRPV ("City")Notice of Decision ("NOD") Case No.:ZON2009-00l08 Location:21 Cayuse Lane (the "Property") Property Owner:Mr.and Mrs.Van Der Zalm (Coleman) Subject:Section 17.02.040 of City Code ("View Preservation and Restoration") Dear Ms.Mikhail, This letter constitutes the Appeal of the below signed property owners,living at 17 and 13 Cayuse Lane,of the NOD.Enclosed with this letter is our Cashier's Check made payable to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in the amount of$2,275 and dated December 9,2010. The following are our grounds for appeal: 1.Anneal Based on Violation of Code §17.02.040B I c.It is our position that the height ofllie project violates the Municipal Code ofthe City ("Code").We feel the provisions of Section 18 of page 3 of the NOD uses the wrong section of the Code to justify the current planned height of the project.Section 18 provides that the maximum height of the project may be 30 feet as measured from the lowest grade covered by the structure to the top of the highest ridgeline.That height (30')is permitted under the provisions of Section l7.02.040B1Q.Section l7.02.04.0Blb is designed to be used for sloping lots which slope downhill from the street for which there is "no building pad." However,the Property clearly has a building pad as shown on the attached Photo I,so we feel that the building height must be measured in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph Q of Section l7.02.040Bl,that is,in accordance with lots with a building pad at a different level than the street.Under the provisions of Section 17.96.320, Building Pad,a building pad means"...any portion of a lot with a slope of 5%or less that exists naturally or has been graded to fonn a contiguous leyel area to accommodate a main building."Since the Property clearly has a "building pad"as shown on Photo 1,the DOC.DISANTO.21.Letter.120610.Rejas.doc 11-18 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Page 2 maximum height limitation is 20'as measured from the point where the lowest foundation of the slab meets the finished grade under 17 .02.040B I c,and as shown on Figure 3 ofthe Code. This project exceeds 20'from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the finished grade,so this is clearly in violation of the Code.The only way this project can be completed pursuant to the Code is if a height variation permit is granted,or the project is downsized to a 20'height. The distinction we make is crucially important to us because based upon Photo 2 attached hereto the day view,as well as the evening "light"view,we have from 17 Cayuse Lane, from both the kitchen and dining room,will be 95%lost.Since view constitutes at least 25%of the value of any residence,and since the 17 Cayuse residence is worth at least $900,000,this would be a loss of value of$225,000. Our "cumulative view"(§17.02.040Ce(vi»would also be affected,so we also Appeal on this ground. We feel that if the provisions of subparagraph c are utilized,then the maximum is 20'and we will retain our view. 2.Action Requested.The specific action being requested is that the height be limited to 20'so as to preserve our view. 3.Appeal Based on NOD's Incorrect Foliage Analysis Under 17.02.040B3 and 4.At page 8 of the NOD,there is a provision entitled "Foliage Analysis."In significant part, the Memo provides in this section that "...staffnoted that no trees significantly impair the view from the viewing area of an adjoining property."However,the trees and other foliage currently existing on the Property eliminate the Queen's Necklace and ocean and Malibu view from 17 Cayuse Lane.The undersigned respectfully request that you make an appointment with us so that you may determine for yourselves the impact of the trees and other foliage on our view of the Queen's Necklace and Malibu by visiting our house. 4.Action Requested.Trimming of foliage is necessary to preserve our view. Your response to this Appeal should be directed to the undersigned and to our counsel,The Edgecumbe Law Firm,cia Craig Edgecumbe,Esq.,2780 Skypark Drive,Ste.325,Torrance,CA 90505. DOc.mSANTO.21.Letter.12131 O.City of RPV Appeal.doc 11-19 I I City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Page 3 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, ~~~6aAi1 Rose Marie Dl anto 13 Cayuse Lane Enclosure C:The Edgecumbe Law Firm ~s~~~ 17 Cayuse Lane DOC.DISANTO.2I.Lener.12131 a.City of RPY Appeal.doc 11-20 11-21 .....11 G't-~4!:b-&.. look,,,,,ko""~,",,~Q"'!)~r\O~~k ~e.t~ ,-",\\dow ~~S.C4~"-c.t\o\o.c l'C~~~Y'I\I\~""a\k,,,~V-Oo,,-\<.c,,\...'r ~~~I.e: ~\"\4.\~d.\\\,~~ .'I 11-22 ,. ./ / Law Offices of Steven E.Wohn 800 S.Pacific Coast Highway Suite 318 Redondo Beach,CA.90277 Telephone:310.534.0005 Facsimile:310.534.0006 Email:stevewohnlaw<@.msn.com February 27,2011 Via Personal Delivery and Facsimile Joel Rojas,AICP Community Development Director clo Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning,Building and Code Enforcement \\<ECE~Vf:D FEB 28 : . Re: Case No: Location: Property Owner: Subject: Dear Ms.Mikhail: Amended Appeal of the Decision ("NOD") ZON2009-00108 21 Cayuse Lane (the "Property") Mr.&Mrs.Van Der Zalm (Coleman) Sections 17.02.040 et.seq.laka RPVMC "View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance' Please be advised this office represents Ms.Hazel Di Santo (17)and Ms.Rose Marie Di Santo (13)who live at two locations on Cayuse Lane in Rancho Palos Verdes.This matter has been the subject ofan appeal since December 13,2010 and is now being amended in anticipation ofthe upcoming hearing of March 8,2011.It is intended to supplement the existing appeal and extend it without waiving any of the previously-stated grounds. While the basic statutes under which the Appellants proceed are the same,the reasons for relief are more fully explained to the Planning Commission herein. 1 11-23 There were three grounds for appeal set forth in the instant matter in the letter of December 13,2010.The first code section proceeded under by the Planning Department was 17.02.040B Ib referring to section 18 of page 3 of the NOD which provides for a maximum height of 30 feet measured from the point oflowest grade to the top of the highest ridgeline. This particular sub-section (b)applies to sloping lots for which there is no "building pad".That is clearly not the case as to this application and the permitted height requires a building height variation permit in order to be legal for the reasons stated in the original appeal.That particular application is required on this project but has not been required by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.Please take note of section 17.02.040Blc of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code in that regard. The second section appealed under refers to 17.02.040Ce (vi)referring to preservation and/or protection oftlle "cumulative view".The Appellants'position is that the reduction in view can amount to as much as a diminished value of twenty five percent (25%)of the value of the property if the proposed evening "light"view is taken from the upslope home. The Appellants will provide a simple blackened mockup of the actual impairment of view of the proposed project. Lastly,the Appellants have requested that the current foliage if allowed to stand without a substantial reduction by trimming as is proposed under the site plan review submitted by VanDer Zalm/Coleman further violates the statute. In closing pertinent case law also protects the type of property right the Appellants seek to protect.In the Mount Hood case (#2009-00048)the homeowner stated:"Please understand we aim to protect the wonderful view of our property as well as the underlying value associated with it".A second homeowner in that case also testified:We are committed to do whatever it takes to keep our view as it is now and not allow the remodel to depreciate the value of our home". These sentiments embody the spirit of this Appeal and the Amendment to the Appeal. Summary of Requested Actions: The following Actions are requested in bullet point form directly below.The analysis of those requested actions is contained in the body of this letter: I.Height:That the height of the proposed construction at the Van Der Zalm/Coleman property be limited to 20'as per the cOl1trolling section of the RPV Municipal Code Section 17.022.040Blc to preserve the Appellants'view 2 11-24 given the fact that a building pad is in existence as our Exhibits have shown and illustrated by Figure 3 in the Code. 2.Height Variation Analysis:That ifthe height of the subject project is not unilaterally limited that a decision on the approval of the Planning Commission be conditioned on the filing of a proper application for completion of a height variation analysis.This action should be taken pursuant to a proper permit that allows the Appellants to provide expert analysis to support their opposition to the 30'project height now being accepted; 3.Specific Findings:That in either event (whether the height is limited or the variation permit required)that the commission make specific findings on the issues of the applicability of the proper code section and the existence of a "building pad"as defined in 17.96.320 which would invoke the provisions of I 7.02.040B1c instead of the section stated in the ~6fFJe~i6ft (''?rOB'':)' 4.Foliage:That the existing foliage on the Van Der £:i';)8~~an~pertyis to be trimmed immediately in accordance with the requirements of 17.02.040B3 and B4 of the Code as there is an existing violation of the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance.That a specific finding be made under section as to the reasons for the lack of any such requirement of trimming given the current condition of the property irrespective of the current application. 5.Re-Ana"lysis and Re-Inspection re Foliage:That any decision regarding the foliage issue and the limitation as to the applicability of the proper code section is to be deferred and a property inspection by the Planning Department personnel assigned to this project be scheduled before any such determination is made. 6.Cumulative View:That any commission decision on the issue of a violation of Title 17.02.040C (d)5,6,and 8 and l7.02.040Ce (vi)be deferred until the issue the impairment of the "cumulative view"provision can be determined in light of the decision on the maximum building height; 7.Finding re Grading Permit:That a specific finding that no grading permit is required pursuant to 17.76.040 ofthis title (or any other applicable provision of this code)is required based on the claimed square footage of the project (which appears to be incorrectly determined)and the number of cubic yards of soil to be removed; 8.Un-compacted Fill:The use of un-compacted fill has not been dealt with as far as the Appellants can tell.Ifit has not been addressed (and or a geology report compiled)then that issue should be carefully analyzed.Whether this means that caissons to bedrock are required or a similar system utilized is unknown but the Appellants raise the issue to ensure a comprehensive review for the permit process. 1.Historical Perspective:The Appellants want to amplify on the background ofthe statutory scheme to provide a backdrop for the discussion by both the Planning Commission in its deliberations and at the public hearing. 3 11-25 •Ordinance 329U:(ll/18/97)-emphasizes need to protect public safety or protect foliage owner's property;emphasizes City's ability to order replacement foliage; •Ordinance 340:(5//12/98)-approval of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; •Ordinance 355:(9/5/2006)-approval re-introducing ordinance of January 4, 2000; •Ordinance 386/389 (5/20/2003)-VRC-Neighborhood Compatibility •Ordinance 405:(5/5/2004)-clarifying 16 foot height limitation and findings for height variation and grading permit applications; The point of the foregoing litany of ordinances is not intended to exhaust the commission but to reiterate the consistent concerns in Title 17 (including its amendments)with the historical purpose of preservation of view.A review of those ordinances will confIrm this fact beyond the shadow of any doubt. After that a follow-up review of current Title 17 requirements as to both the procedural requirements that needed to be met to approve this application and the substantive defIciencies in the current analysis under the Notice of Decision is needed in order to properly evaluate .this application. 2.Procedural Grounds: The original appeal detailed several of the statutory grounds that apply to the instant case. There are however,other matters that have come to light while the Appellants have reviewed the City's NOD with respect to the pending project since December.These issues are deserving of mention and consideration by the Planning Commission before the instant project is approved. A.Numerous Errors in the Notice of Decision:The Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit #ZON2009-00108 was initiated on March 10,2010 and went through numerous revisions at the request of the Planning Department throughout the course of 2010 until completed apparently on August 10,2010.The Notice of Decision was issued on November 29,2010 and appealed timely on December 13,2010 by the Appellants Hazel Di Santo and Rose Marie Di Santo. There have been numerous errors of fact and mathematical calculation in the process as it has moved forward through several amended applications for approval during 2010, many of which have not been addressed on a procedural or substantive level by the Planning Department. The Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit Application is not accurate.89S11el aft HIli igHf@8 BitBHHFt:88 By the 8f3J31ieaat ftfI::6 the Hture3 3ft81Jill 8ft Elie 633e3301 h eb3ite tt3 te lilli_a feellll!l8 afthe let.At least one example of the inaccurate analysis is the difference 5 11-26 in simple square footage calculations between the applicant and the Planning Department (i.e.2588I2BHl). A "~/5'cC/%~0/0 "f>P'CA."e Additional examples are as fqllows:n..rl •The statement in the ~1'~~v is that this is an RS-3 zone when it is actually an RS-2 zone;the lot coverage calculations are different (45%as to 40%) etc; •The proposed increase in the height of the project (based on measurement from the "building pad")exceeds the statutory standard and per se requires a height variation application. •Site plan review does not mention existing playhouse of 120 square feet as part of the calculation submitted to the City-this changes the computation on the lot coverage; •The Statement in the Site Plan Review Form does not accurately reflect the building footprint and the lot coverage (and therefore the percentage oflot coverage); •Construction within a legal easement is not allowed without permission from the holder of the easement and after review by the City Attorney (17.48.030); B.Summary List of Additional Substantive Grounds for Denial of ApplicationlReversal of NOD: •Building Height Variation Requires Application •Incorrect Foliage Analysis: •Grading Permit Required (17.76.040) •Silhouette Certification Form deficient; •Easement Analysis C.Exhibits:The Exhibits attached to the back of this Amended Appeal are indicative of the extreme impact the proposed construction by the applicant will have on the view of the Di Santo residence.The statutory requirements having been mentioned it is a simple fact that an inordinate amount of the view long held by the Di Santos will result in both a psychological taking and a substantial diminution in the value of the residence by any customary method of appraisal. Conclusion There are substantial procedural and substantive errors in the Notice of Decision of November 29,2010.The review of this project is conclusary at best.There are significant omissions in terrns of the analysis and the "flldings"contained therein 6 J\ 11-27 relating to the application of incorrect provisions of the code as to height,foliage,view impairment and grading issues. It is also noted that the proposed project is essentially inconsistent with the stated purposes of the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance as to its basic tenet of keeping the character of the neighborhood intact. In essence the approval of the project as it stands would rubbers tamp a construction project that is not compliant with the code and provide a pathway for the approval of other projects of a similar nature in derogation of the fundamental mandate of the ordinance and its many amendments. For these reasons the Planning Commission should reject the requested permit, utilize its discretion to demand further analysis and investigation into the true nature of the proposed construction. Respectfully,submitted Dated:February 27,2011 Steven E.Wohn Attorney for Appellants Hazel and Rose Marie Di Santo 7 11-28 This is the main living area of the house where we enjoy the beautiful view.1.The proposed project will permanently block the entire city view from the city view's bottom to its top,2.The Queen's necklace,Malibu and the ocean are behind foliage to the left of the garage.3.The garage already takes out the entire city view from the city view's bottom to its top,and higher.If the roof of the garage were to be removed,the walls would still be 35 to 40% into the city view.4.Not too long in the future the entire view area left of the garage will be gone.5.These are the houses,in the very least,that could cause significant cumulative view impairment. 11-29 Gmall -Hi -rdrayodeluna@gmail.com A+4-~ch.IVl~~+3 Attachment 3 of Appeal Letter dated March 22,2011. RE:Appeal of ZON2009-001 08 (21 Cayuse Lane) California Code,General Plan,Ordinances,Proposition M,and the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 3/23/11 4:30 PM This is a part of the Appeal Letter dated March 22,2011 and includes the issues of Neighborhood Compatibility and it is 16'"by right"instead of 16'/30'"by right."Other problems are the Extreme Slope Permit,the covered (patio)deck structure,a third story that is not mentioned,the front setback line and setback,no dimensions on the plans,and "new" .and "existing"is not thoroughly noted on the plans,6 S+m':le.s st-a.e:-kJ2-d "I\~0 h.-l-op 'O~+hL o-\·he.r. There is also missing information and inaccurate information in the Memorandum dated November 4,2010,in the Notice of Decision dated November 29,2010,in the application forms,and in the plans which have created inconsistencies,and would substantially change the proposed project.There are numerous errors and omissions. These need to be corrected. Procedures were not followed and regulations and requirements of the City have not been met which would substantially change the proposed project.These need to be corrected. And,as it is,it is not according to the intent of the codes,General Plan,Ordinances,Proposition M,and the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. https:IlmaILgoogle,com/malll?shv'1Bl#drafts 112coSOdfl18d4f91 Page 1 of 1 11-30 Rebuttal Letter from the A(Wlicant (dated March 24,2011) 11-31 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From:Russ Barto [russbarto@earthlink.net] Sent:Thursday,March 24,2011 12:12 PM To:'Leza Mikhail';Joel Rojas Cc:'Carina Coieman' Subject:21 Cayuse Hi Leza, I want to comment on the appellant's allegations regarding our application: Regarding the assertion that this is not a sloping lot: From the garage at the front to the game room at the back the property slopes 19'. If you look at the North Elevation,the continuous slope is readily apparent. There are in fact two retaining walls that exceed 8'in height;one at the garage (Section A)and one at the lower living levei (Section B). Regarding the "three story"assertion: This design does not create a third story;the three ievels of the house currently exist. The three levels do not stack one on top of the other;rather the design steps down the siope. There is the two-level volume at the front,with the garage and loft on the upper level and the kitchen and family room on the iower level; There is also the two-ievel volume that currently exists:the living-dining and bedroom areas on the upper level and the game room,laundry,etc on the lower level. Regarding the view impact: As staff pointed out to the Pianning Commission,view is not a consideration based on the sioping lot and the 16'-30'envelope.That being said: The appellant's photos are misieading.In order to accurately assess the view impact the entire panoramic view (which is spectacuiar)should be shown.The appellant's photos are focused on the addition only,which exaggerates its impact. We are actually iowering the maximum height of the house from what currentiy exists in order to comply with the 16'-30'height requirement. Based on the 16'-30'envelope we could have extended the roof out over the living room and significantly increased the view impact "by right". Finally,please let me know if the appellant submits any additional material.I would like the opportunity to review the material and respond appropriately. When will we go before the Council? Russ Barto 3/25/2011 11-32 P.C.Resolution No.2011-12 11-33 P,r..RESOLUTION NO.2011-12 •• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE,WITH CONDITIONS,SITE PLAN REVIEW AND EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT CASE NO.ZON2009- 00108 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 512 SQUARE FOOT UPPER LEVEL ADDITION,1,092 SQUARE FOOT ENTRY LEVEL ADDITION 501 SQUARE FOOT LOWER LEVEL ADDITION,AND TWO NEW DECKS,A PORTION OF WHICH EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF AN EXTREME SLOPE,ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 CAYUSE LANE. WHEREAS,on March 24,2009,the applicant formally submitted Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit requesting approval to construct a 2,105 square foot addition to the existing residence and two new decks,a portion of which would extend beyond the top of an extreme slope;and, WHEREAS,on April 16,2009,April 20,2009,July 12,2010 and on September 7, 2010,the applicant submitted revisions;and, WHEREAS,upon submittal of the required information,construction of the temporary silhouette and submittal of the silhouette certification form,the case was deemed complete by Staff on September 14,2010.Subsequently,a notice of application was mailed to 61 property owners within a 500'radius of the subject site and the notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on September 23,2010;and, WHEREAS,on November 11,2010,the project applicant granted a one-time 90-day extension to the Permit Streamlining Act to allow staff additional time to assess the project in response to certain comment letters received from Rose Marie Di Santo and Hazel Di Santo;and, WHEREAS,the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),under Article 19,Section 15303(e)(2)(additions)of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA.Specifically,the project includes the minor addition and alteration to an existing structure that will not result in a structure that exceeds 10,000 square feet.Further,the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available and the project is not located in an environmentally sensitive area. As such,this project has been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment;and, WHEREAS,on November 29,2010,the Community Development Director reviewed and approved Case No.ZON2009-00108,and a Notice of Decision was prepared and distributed to all interested parties;and, WHEREAS,on December 13,2010,within fifteen (15.)days following the Director's Notice of Decision,an attorney representing Rose Marie and Hazel Di Santo (hereinafter 11-34 referred to as Appellants),filed an appeal to the Planning Commission requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's approval of Case No.ZON2009-00108;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 8,2011,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;and, NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:The Site Plan Review to allow the new addition and other ancillary site improvements can be approved because: A.The proposed residence and resulting appearance will not significantly change the appearance of the immediate neighborhood and the residence will be compatible with the immediate neighborhood.The architectural style,roofing material,exterior finishes,and building materials will be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood.Although the resulting 5,440 square foot residence will be 2,159 square feet greater than the neighborhood average,the size of the proposed residence i?found to be within the range of the homes in the immediate neighborhood,which range from 2,351 square feet to 5,529 square feet.Further, the single-story configuration of the proposed residence as seen from the street mitigates the potential concern for creating bulk and mass.Lastly,the building setbacks from the corresponding property lines are found to be comparable with the residences found in the immediate neighborhood,with a 15'-0"north side yard setback and 35'-0"south side yard setback. Section 2:The Extreme Slope Permit to allow two decks,a portion of which extends beyond the top of an extreme slope may be granted because: A.The site cannot reasonably accommodate the decks except on an extreme slope. The proposed deck is intended to be used as an outdoor eating and barbecue area adjacent to the kitchen.Although there are other areas on the site that could accommodate a table and portable barbecue,those areas are far from the kitchen and are located on the lower floor area.Proximity to the kitchen is important for transporting food back and forth,and there is no other location on site that offers that proximity.Additionally,decks that extend over extreme slopes are common in the surrounding hillside neighborhood.If the applicant reduced the size of the deck so that no portions of the deck could extend beyond the top of the previously existing extreme slope,the deck would only be 5'-0"to 7'-0"feet wide and could not reasonably accommodate an outside table.Furthermore,there is an existing deck located in the same area whereby a portion of the deck will be removed for the construction of the kitchen. B.Granting the Extreme Slope Permit will result in no significant adverse effect on neighboring properties,including view impairment,visual impact,slope instability, P.C.Resolution No.2011-12 Page 2 11-35 increased runoff and other adverse impacts.As part of the building and safety review of the deck and associated supporting walls,the applicant will need to obtain approval from the City's Geologist ensuring that the new deck and support walls will not create a negative geological impact to the area.Additionally,the applicant will need to satisfy the City's Building Official ensuring that the deck has been engineered and constructed in a manner that meets the requirements of the Building Code.Further,in addition to the structural aspects of the deck,Staff conducted a view and visual analysis of the proposed deck,and concluded that the deck would have no adverse impact to views as seen from neighboring properties. The deck will not be easily visible from other properties due to the topography in the surrounding neighborhood and existing foliage on the subject property that obstructs visibility of the deck. C.Granting the Extreme Slope Permit will not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences.The proposed deck would only potentially affect the property to the north,at 28438 Cayuse Lane.The residential pad for the neighbors property is over 30 feet below the subject property.Although a portion of the neighbors rear yard and spa will be more visible from the northeast portion of the proposed deck,the views into the neighbor's property will be no more of an infring~ment than existing views into the neighbor's yard from other areas of the subject residence.In fact,the views from the proposed deck into the neighbor's backyard will be less of an infringement than views from the existing living room and deck off the rear of the subject house. D.Any disturbance of the slope will be insignificant.The foundation of the proposed deck would be located at the top of the extreme slope.Furthermore,the construction associated with the deck and support walls will be required to be reviewed by the City Geologist and Building Official. E.Granting the Extreme Slope Permit is consistent with the General Plan,Coastal Specific Plan or any other application plan.According to the General Plan,"It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment;to enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods;and to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community."Through the approval of an Extreme Slope Permit for the proposed deck,the project will adequately serve the needs of the property owner by allowing him/her to have a sufficient,functional,useable and adequate access to outdoor eating area from the kitchen area of the home.Additionally,the project will not have a negative impact to the visual character and physical quality of the existing neighborhood. Section 4:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1 )(g)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,any such appeal must be filed with the City,in writing,setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the P.C.Resolution No.2011-12 Page 3 11-36 appellant,and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee,no later than fifteen (15)days following March a,2011,the date of the Planning Commission's final action. 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 the appeal and upholds the Director's decision,and thereby conditionally approves Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2009-0010a)for a 512 square foot upper level addition,1,092 square foot addition to the entry level,a 501 square foot addition to the lower level and the construction of two decks,a portion of which extend beyond the top of an extreme slope located at 21 Cayuse Lane,subject to the conditions of approval in the Director's Notice of Decision dated November 29,2010. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this ath day of March 2011,by the following vote: AYES:Commissioners Emenhiser,Knight,Leon,Lewis and Chairman Tomblin NOES:None ABSTENTIONS:Commissioner Gerstner RECUSALS:None ABSENT:Vice Chairman Tetreault C;;;=IDVlomblin Chairman J~j"'-I--=_--- Community Development Director Secretary to the Planning Commission P.C.Resolution No.2011-12 Page 4 11-37 P .C.Staff Report (March 8,20111 (includes Staff Report to Director -dated November 4,2011) 11-38 CITY OF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO:CHAIRMAN AND MEMB~RSOF HE PLANNINNG COMMISSION FROM:COMMUNITY DEVELOP N DIRECTOR DATE:MARCH 8,2011 SUBJECT:APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT (CASEJ;jO.ZON2009-00108) Staff Coordinator:Leza Mikhail,Associate Plannef\ RECOMMENDATI~N V Adopt P.C.Resolution No.2011-_,upholding the Director's decision and conditionally approving the requested Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit at 21 Cayuse Lane (Case No.lON2009-001 08). BACKGROUND On November 29,2010,the Community Development Director approved Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit (lON2009-00108)applications to allow the construction of a 512 square foot upper level addition,1,092 square foot entry level addition and 501 square foot lower level addition.The project also included the construction of a new deck off the proposed new kitchen and a deck for trash cans,near the existing garage.In accordance with the Municipal Code,a Notice of Decision for the approval was sent to all interested parties. On December 13,2010,(Ms.Hazel Di Santo),the property owner of 17 Cayuse Lane, and her daughter (Ms.Rose Marie Di Santo),property owner of 13 Cayuse Lane filed an appeal of the Director's decision.Specifically,the Di Santos'are requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's approval of the Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit due to view impairment concerns. On February 14,2011,Staff mailed notices for a Planning Commission appeal hearing to 60 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property,providing a 15- day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns:In addition,a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on February 17,2011.The public commenting 11-39 period expired on February 28,2011.Aside from the appeal letter,Staff received no additional commentary from the public.However,Staff did receive additional comments from the appellants which are discussed later in this staff report. DISCUSSION The original Staff Report to the Director,dated November 4,2010,which contains a full analysis of the proposed project approved by the Director on November 29,2010,is attached.The Director approved a Site Plan Review applicant allowing 2,105 square feet of new additions to the existing residence.In approving the application,the Director found that the proposed additions would be compatible with the immediate neighborhood and would comply with the applicable standards of the City's Development Code.In addition,the Director approved an Extreme Slope Permit to allow 74 square feet of a new deck to extend beyond the top of an extreme slope.The Director also found that the proposed new decks would provide a functional and useable eating area just off the proposed kitchen. For the purposes of this report,Staff has focused on the issues raised within the appeal letter (attached)submitted by the Di Santos'. Appellant's Issue:Director's determination is in violation of Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(B)(1)(c)(Building Height and View Preservation). Summary of Appellant's Issue:The Appellants assert that the incorrect section of the Municipal Code was used to determine the maximum allowable height permitted without a Height Variation permit for the additions to the single-family residence on the subject property (21 Cayuse).More specifically,the Appellants disagree with Staff's determination that a maximum allowable "by-right"height of 30'-0",as measured from the lowest grade covered by the structure to the highest ridge line of the structure applies to the proposed project.The Appellants state that such maximum height is only permitted on "sloping"lots which slope downhill from the street of access,per Section 17.02.040(B)(1)(b),and that the subject lot is actually a "pad"lot,as defined in Section 17.02.040(B)(1)(c)of the Development Code.As such,the Appellants believe that the proposed project is subject to the height limits for a "pad"lot,which would only permit a maximum structure height of 20'-0",as measured from lowest grade to the highest ridgeline without approval of a Height Variation permit.Thus,the Appellants believe that the proposed project requires the approval of a Height Variation permit which would subject the proposed project to additional findings,including but not limited to,view impairment and privacy impact analysis. Staff's Response:Section 17.02.040(B)(1)(d)of the Municipal Code defines the height limitations and minimum requirements for primary structures located on "sloping"lots. Specifically,the code states that on lots that slope downhill from the street of access, "the foundation of the structure shall contain a minimum eight foot step with the slope of the lot ...[and]no portion of the structure shall exceed thirty feet in height,when measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade to Page 211-40 the ridge line or highest point of the structure ...[and]the thirty foot height shall not exceed a horizontally projected sixteen foot height line from the high point of the uphill step of the structure." The subject property is a 20,010 square foot lot that descends over 50 feet from the street of access (Cayuse Lane)to the rear property line,which abuts a private easement.The current property is developed with a detached,two-story wood frame garage whereby the parking is accessed from grade to the top floor.The garage is located near the front property line,where the highest elevations of the property exist.A set of stairs descend over 10'-0"along the exterior south side of the garage to access a leveled yard area (front yard)and front door to the primary residence.The front of the residence appears as a single-story structure and the front entry/first floor is accessed at a finished floor elevation of 74.42'.There is a leveled rear yard area (backyard)that is accessed at an average elevation of 65.5'.The backyard can only be accessed from the lower level floor area of the residence or by exterior stairs that exist along the north and south sides of the residence.In addition,there is an 8'-0"tall retaining wall (step)that slopes with the property and spans across a majority of the east side of the lower level floor.Furthermore,the residence is physically located on a slope that exceeds 5%, which is the maximum slope permitted to be considered a "pad"lot,pursuant to the Development Code.(Section 17.96.320 -Definition of Building Pad). Due to the fact that the property slopes downhill from the street of access (Cayuse Lane),is physically located on a hillside,irrespective of the leveled front and rear yard areas,and there is an 8'-0"tall retaining wall (step)along the lower floor area,the subject property is considered a "sloping"lot.As such,the applicant is permitted "by- right"to construct a residence or addition ___- that does not exceed 16'-0",as measured from the average elevation of the setback line abutting the street of --~"---,~~~ access to the ridgeline or the highest ~f~-#,-",,,,,,,, point of the structure,and 30'-0",as measured from the lowest foundation adjacent to the structure to the highest point of the structure (see Figure 2). With the proposed addition,the residence will not exceed the permitted 16'-30'building envelope for "sloping"lots.After the construction of the addition,the residence will reach a maximum height of 10'-11",as measured from the average elevation of the setback line (approximately 84.22')to the top of the highest ridgeline (elev.95.14'),and 30'-0"as measured from the lowest adjacent grade covered by the structure (elev. 65.14')to the top of the highest ridgeline (elev.95.14').As the subject property has been determined to be a "sloping"lot and the applicant is permitted to construct an addition within the permitted 16'/30'building envelope,a Height Variation application is not required and conversely an analysis of the project's view impacts is not part of the review process. Page 311-41 Appellant's Issue:Director's determination is in violation of Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(8)(3 and 4)(Foliage Obstruction). Summary of Appellants Issue:In the December 13,2010 letter of appeal,the Appellants state that the foliage analysis that was conducted as part of the original decision was inaccurate and that there exists foliage on the applicant's property that obstructs views of the Queen's Necklace and portions of Malibu from the adjoining property.Specifically,the Appellants request that the foliage on the property be required to be trimmed and that Staff visit 17 Cayuse to conduct a further foliage analysis to confirm this. Staff's Response:During the original foliage analysis conducted by Staff in November 2010,Staff determined that no foliage on the subject property significantly impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel.This determination was made based on the fact that there were not many trees on the subject property and the only tree that could impact views was located adjacent to the neighbor's solid portion of the residence where no windows were located.After receipt of the appeal,Staff immediately contacted the Appellants to visit the property and conduct an additional foliage analysis. At the Appellants request,Staff visited the property located at 17 Cayuse Lane in January 2011.At that time,Staff discussed the Appellants desired removal of one 12" diameter tree located on the south eastern slope of the Applicant's front yard.The Appellants noted that only a portion of the tree would need to be removed in order to regain the view of the Queen's Necklace and Malibu view.Staff also discussed the Appellants issue with the Applicant who stated that they would be willing to remove the tree in its entirety.In February 2011,the Applicant completely removed the tree.As such,the Appellants issue has been resolved. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Approximately 10 weeks after filing their original appeal letter,Rose Marie Di Santo and Hazel Di Santo submitted a supplemental comment letter with additional concerns drafted by an attorney which they have retained.The comment letter was received on February 28,2011.Although a majority of the letter expands on the Appellants'issues noted in their original appeal letter discussed above,the Di Santo's attorney raised a couple of other issues not addressed in the original appeal.These issues are addressed below. Requirement for Grading Permit The Appellants state that "a specific finding that no grading permit is required pursuant to 17.76.040 of...[the Municipal Code](or any other applicable provision of [thej...code) is required based on the claimed square footage of the project ...and the number of cubic yards of soil to be removed."The Site Plan Review application submitted by the Applicant notes that the proposed grading for the project would not exceed a maximum depth of 2'-6"and 18 cubic yards.After receiving the February 28,2011 letter from the Appellant,Staff verified that the applicant would not be conducting additional grading, Page 411-42 above 18 cubic yards.According to Section 17.76.040(C)of the Municipal Code,a grading permit is required when the proposed grading is required for foundations/caissons that exceed 10 feet in depth,grading that exceeds 20 cubic yards of cut and/or fill and a depth of 3'-0"or more.The proposed addition will be located on a level portion of the property and would not require grading beyond what is necessary for the excavation of the foundation,which would not exceed 10'-0"in height.As such,the proposed project would not require a Grading Permit. The Appellants also note that issues related to un-compacted fill and the need for a geology report have not been addressed.Geology reports are not required for additions to an existing residence;however,the Applicant will be required to submit a geology report upon submittal in Building and Safety Plan Check to ensure that the addition will not create a geologic hazard. Incorrect Zoning in Original Staff Report (specifically Lot Coverage inaccuracy) The Appellant points out that the original Staff Report notes the underlying zoning for the property as RS-3 instead of RS-2.Staff revisited the zoning for the property as a result of the supplemental letter submitted on February 28,2011 and agrees that the underlying zoning is RS-2.Under the RS-2 Zoning District,the maximum lot coverage allowed is 40%.Including the square footage of the new building footprint (3,012 square feet)and the driveway and impervious surface areas (3,642 square feet),the new total lot coverage would be 6,654 square feet,or 33%of the 20,012 square foot sloping lot. As such,although there was a mistake made in the original staff report regarding the zoning lot coverage,the proposed project complies with the maximum allowable lot coverage for the RS-2 zoning district. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the findings and criterion to warrant the approval of the Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit were made within the Director's discretion.As a result of the appeal,Staff believes that the appellants introduced no new evidence or facts to warrant a change to the Director's decision.Therefore,Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's conditional approval of Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit Case No.ZON2009-001 08. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to consider: 1)Uphold the appeal,thereby overturning the Director's decision to conditionally approve Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit Case No.ZON2009-00108 without prejudice,and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next Planning Commission meeting with an appropriate P.C.Resolution;or 2)Uphold the appeal,thereby overturning the Director's decision to conditionally Page 5 11-43 approve Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit Case No.lON2009-00108 with prejudice,and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next Planning Commission meeting with an appropriate P.C.Resolution;or 3)Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project,provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project,and continue the public hearing to a date certain. Attachments: •Draft P.C.Resolution No.2011- •Appeal Letter from Craig Edgecumbe,Esq.(representing Rose Marie and Hazel Di Santo)-submitted December 13,2010 •Supplemental Letter from Steven E.Wohn,Esq.(representing Rose Marie and Hazel De Santo)-submitted February 28,2011 •Director's Notice of Decision -dated November 29,2010 •Original Staff Report and attachments -dated November 4,2010 •Applicable Code Sections •Project plans Page 611-44 Draft P .C.Resolution No.2011- 11-45 P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE,WITH CONDITIONS,SITE PLAN REVIEW AND EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT CASE NO.ZON2009- 00108 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 512 SQUARE FOOT UPPER LEVEL ADDITION,1,092 SQUARE FOOT ENTRY LEVEL ADDITION 501 SQUARE FOOT LOWER LEVEL ADDITION,AND TWO NEW DECKS,A PORTION OF WHICH EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF AN EXTREME SLOPE,ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 CAYUSE LANE. WHEREAS,on March 24,2009,the applicant formally submitted Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit requesting approval to construct a 2,105 square foot addition to the existing residence and two new decks,a portion of which would extend beyond the top of an extreme slope;and, WHEREAS,on April 16,2009,April 20,2009,July 12,2010 and on September 7, 2010,the applicant submitted revisions;and, WHEREAS,upon submittal of the required information,construction of the temporary silhouette and submittal of the silhouette certification form,the case was deemed complete by Staff on September 14,2010.Subsequently,a notice of application was mailed to 61 property owners within a SOD'radius of the subject site and the notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on September 23,2010;and, WHEREAS,on November ii,2010,the project applicant granted a one-time 90-day extension to the Permit Streamlining Act to allow staff additional time to assess the project in response to certain comment letters received from Rose Marie Di Santo and Hazel Di Santo;and, WHEREAS,the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),under Article 19,Section 15303(e)(2)(additions)of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA.Specifically,the project includes the minor addition and alteration to an existing structure that will not result in a structure that exceeds 10,000 square feet.Further,the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available and the project is not located in an environmentally sensitive area. As such,this project has been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment;and, WHEREAS,on November 29,2010,the Community Development Director reviewed and approved Case No.lON2009-00108,and a Notice of Decision was prepared and distributed to all interested parties;and, WHEREAS,on December 13,2010,within fifteen (15)'days following the Director's Notice of Decision,an attorney representing Rose Marie and Hazel Di Santo (hereinafter 11-46 referred to as Appellants),filed an appeal to the Planning Commission requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's approval of Case No.ZON2009-001 08;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 8,2011,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;and, NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:The Site Plan Review to allow the new addition and other ancillary site improvements can be approved because: A.The proposed residence and resulting appearance will not significantly change the appearance of the immediate neighborhood and the residence will be compatible with the immediate neighborhood.The architectural style,roofing material,exterior finishes,and building materials will be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood.Although the resulting 5,440 square foot residence will be 2,159 square feet greater than the neighborhood average,the size of the proposed residence is found to be within the range of the homes in the immediate neighborhood,which range from 2,351 square feet to 5,529 square feet. Further, the single-story configuration of the proposed residence as seen from the street mitigates the potential concern for creating bulk and mass.Lastly,the building setbacks from the corresponding property lines are found to be comparable with the residences found in the immediate neighborhood,with a 15'-0"north side yard setback and 35'-0"south side yard setback. Section 2:The Extreme Slope Permit to allow two decks,a portion of which extends beyond the top of an extreme slope may be granted because: A.The site cannot reasonably accommodate the decks except on an extreme slope. The proposed deck is intended to be used as an outdoor eating and barbecue area adjacent to the kitchen. Although there are other areas on the site that could accommodate a table and portable barbecue,those areas are farfrom the kitchen and are located on the lower floor area.Proximity to the kitchen is important for transporting food back and forth,and there is no other location on site that offers that proximity.Additionally,decks that extend over extreme slopes are common in the surrounding hillside neighborhood.If the applicant reduced the size of the deck so that no portions of the deck could extend beyond the top of the previously existing extreme slope,the deck would only be 5'-0"to 7'-0"feet wide and could not reasonably accommodate an outside table.Furthermore,there is an existing deck located in the same area whereby a portion of the deck will be removed for the construction of the kitchen. B.Granting the Extreme Slope Permit will result in no significant adverse effect on neighboring properties,including view impairment,visual impact,slope instability, P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 211-47 increased runoff and other adverse impacts.As part of the building and safety review of the deck and associated supporting walls,the applicant will need to obtain approval from the City's Geologist ensuring that the new deck and support walls will not create a negative geological impact to the area.Additionally,the applicant will need to satisfy the City's Building Official ensuring that the deck has been engineered and constructed in a manner that meets the requirements of the Building Code.Further,in addition to the structural aspects of the deck,Staff conducted a view and visual analysis of the proposed deck,and concluded that the deck would have no adverse impact to views as seen from neighboring properties. The deck will not be easily visible from other properties due to the topography in the surrounding neighborhood and existing foliage on the subject property that obstructs visibility of the deck. C.Granting the Extreme Slope Permit will not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences.The proposed deck would only potentially affect the property to the north,at 28438 Cayuse Lane.The residential pad for the neighbors property is over 30 feet below the subject property.Although a portion of the neighbors rear yard and spa will be more visible from the northeast portion of the proposed deck,the views into the neighbor's property will be no more of an infringement than existing views into the neighbor's yard from other areas of the subject residence.In fact,the views from the proposed deck into the neighbor's backyard will be less of an infringement than views from the existing living room and deck off the rear of the subject house. D.Any disturbance of the slope will be insignificant.The foundation of the proposed deck would be located at the top of the extreme slope.Furthermore,the construction associated with the deck and support walls will be required to be reviewed by the City Geologist and Building Official. E.Granting the Extreme Slope Permit is consistent with the General Plan,Coastal Specific Plan or any other application plan.According to the General Plan,"It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment;to enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods;and to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community."Through the approval of an Extreme Slope Permit for the proposed deck,the project will adequately serve the needs of the property owner by allowing him/her to have a sufficient,functional,useable and adequate access to outdoor eating area from the kitchen area of the home.Additionally,the project will not have a negative impact to the visual character and physical quality of the existing neighborhood. Section 4:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1)(g)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,any such appeal must be filed with the City,in writing,setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 311-48 appellant,and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee,no later than fifteen (15)days following March S,2011,the date of the Planning Commission's final action. 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 the appeal and upholds the Director's decision,and thereby conditionally approves Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2009-0010S)for a 512 square foot upper level addition,1,092 square foot addition to the entry level,a 501 square foot addition to the [ower level and the construction of two decks,a portion of which extend beyond the top of an extreme slope located at 21 Cayuse Lane,subject to the conditions of approval in the Director's Notice of Decision dated November 29,2010. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this Sth day of March 2011,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: David L.Tomblin Chairman Joel Rojas,AICP Community Development Director Secretary to the Planning Commission P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 411-49 Appeal Letter from Craig Edgecumbe,Esq. (representing Rose Marie and Hazel Oi Santo) 11-50 RECEIVED DEC 13 2010 PLANNING.BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT December 13,20 I0 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY Joel Rojas,AICP Community Development Director c/o Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning,Building and Code Enforcement RE:Appeal of November 29,2010 City of RPV ("City")Notice of Decision ("NOD") Case No.:ZON2009-00108 Location:21 Cayuse Lane (the "Property") Property Owner:Mr.and Mrs.Van Der Zalm (Coleman) Subject:Section 17.02.040 of City Code ("View Preservation and Restoration") Dear Ms.Mikhail, This letter constitutes the Appeal of the below signed property owners,living at 17 and 13 Cayuse Lane,of the NOD.Enclosed with this letter is our Cashier's Check made payable to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in the amount of$2,275 and dated December 9,2010. The following are our grounds for appeal: I.Appeal Based on Violation of Code §17.02.040B I c.It is our position that the height of the project violates the Municipal Code of the City ("Code").We feel the provisions of Section 18 of page 3 of the NOD uses the wrong section of the Code to justify the current plalU1ed height of the project.Section 18 provides that the maximum height of the project may be 30 feet as measured from the lowest grade covered by the structure to the top of the highest ridgeline.That height (30')is pe1111itted under the provisions of Section 17.02.040B 112.Section 17.02.04.0B Ib is designed to be used for sloping lots which slope downhill from the street for which there is "no building pad." However,the Property clearly has a building pad as shown on the attached Photo I,so we feel that the building height must be measured in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph £of Section 17.02.040BI,that is,in accordance with lots with a building pad at a different level than the sh·eet.Under the provisions of Section 17.96.320, Building Pad,a building pad means "...any portion of a lot with a slope of 5%or less that exists naturally or has been graded to f01111 a contiguous leyel area to accommodate a main building."Since the Propelly clearly has a "building pad"as shown on Photo I,the DOC.DISANTO.21.Letter.1206!O.Rojas.doc 11-51 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Plmming,Building and Code Enforcement Page 2 maximum height limitation is 20'as measured from the point where the lowest foundation of the slab meets the finished grade under 17 .02.040B I c,and as shown on Figure 3 of the Code. This project exceeds 20'from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the finished grade,so this is clearly in violation of the Code.The only way this project can be completed pursumlt to the Code is if a height variation permit is granted,or the project is downsized to a 20'height. The distinction we make is crucially important to us because based upon Photo 2 attached hereto the day view,as well as the evening "light"view,we have from 17 Cayuse Lane, from both the kitchen mld dining room,will be 95%lost.Since view constitutes at least 25%of the value of any residence,and since the 17 Cayuse residence is worth at least $900,000,this would be a loss of value of$225,000. Our "cumulative view"(§I7.02.040Ce(vi))would also be affected,so we also Appeal on this ground. We feel that if the provisions of subparagraph c are utilized,then the maximum is 20'and we will retain our view. 2.Action Requested.The specific action being requested is that the height be limited to 20'so as to preserve our view. 3.Appeal Based on NOD's Incon'ect Foliage Analysis Under 17.02.040B3 and 4.At page 8 of the NOD,there is a provision entitled "Foliage Analysis."In significant part, the Memo provides in this section that "".staff noted that no trees significantly impair the view from the viewing area of an adjoining property."However,the trees and other foliage cUIl'ently existing on the Property eliminate the Queen's Necklace and ocean and Malibu view from 17 Cayuse Lane.The undersigned respectfully request that you make an appointment with us so that you may detemline for yourselves the impact of the trees and other foliage on our view of the Queen's Necklace and Malibu by visiting our house. 4.Action Requested.Trimming of foliage is necessary to preserve our view. Your response to this Appeal should be directed to the undersigned and to our counsel,The Edgecumbe Law Firm,c/o Craig Edgecumbe,Esq.,2780 Skypark Drive,Ste.325,Torrance,CA 90505.. DOC.DISANTO.21.Lelter.12131 O.City or RPV Appeat.doc 11-52 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Page 3 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, ~U~~SaAr1 Rose Ma~iel51 ~1I;to 13 Cayuse Lane Enclosure C:The Edgecllmbe Law Fil111 ~~~s}~~~ 17 Cayuse Lane OOC.OISANTO.21.Lener.12131 O.City of RPV Appeal.doc 11-53 11-54 ~l1 G~~_..Le:n-e. look,~~k"'t-o~",,~V'lul~.~h r\O'r~"~e.t~~~\\\c.\.w ~~SOC4~"~~O\0.(:(.c\+~~~Y'I""~~a\k\~~~D""<.~~.(''"+q,b ~ , ,.~,-~-- Q.\"\4.\~Go \\\\~V'.~ 11-55 Supplemental Letter from Steven E.Wohn,Esq (representing Rose Marie and Hazel Oi Santo) 11-56 Law Offices of Steven E.Wohn 800 S.Pacific Coast Highway Suite 318 Redondo Beach,CA.90277 Telephone:310.534.0005 Facsimile:310.534.0006 Email:stevewohnlaw{a)msn.com February 27,2011 Via Personal Delivery and Facsimile Joel Rojas,AICP Community Development Director c/o Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning,Building and Code Enforcement RECEIVED FEB 28 2~il PLANNING.BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Re: Case No: Location: Property Owner: Subject: Dear Ms.Mikhail: Amended Appeal of the Decision ("NOD") ZON2009-00108 21 Cayuse Lane (the "Property") Mr.&Mrs.Van Der Zalm (Coleman) Sections 17.02.040 et.seq./aka RPVMC "View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance' Please be advised this ofiice represents Ms.Hazel Di Santo (17)and Ms.Rose Marie Di Santo (13)who live at two locations on Cayuse Lane in Rancho Palos Verdes.This matter has been the subject of an appeal since December 13,2010 and is now being amended in anticipation of the upcoming hearing of March 8,2011.It is intended to supplement the existing appeal and extend it without waiving any of the previously-stated grounds. While the basic statutes under which the Appellants proceed are the same,the reasons for relief are more fully explained to the Platming Commission herein. 1 11-57 There were three grounds for appeal set forth in the instant matter in the letter of December 13,20 I O.The first code section proceeded under by the Planning Department was 17.02.040B Ib referring to section 18 of page 3 of the NOD which provides for a maximum height of30 feet measured from the point oflowest grade to the top of the highest ridgeline. Tills particular sub-section (b)applies to sloping lots for which there is no "building pad".That is clearly not the case as to this application and the permitted height requires a building height variation permit in order to be legal for the reasons stated in the original appeal.That particular application is required on this project but has not been required by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.Please take note of section 17.02.040Blc of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code in that regard. The second section appealed under refers to 17.02.040Ce (vi)refening to preservation and/or protection of the "cumulative view".The Appellants'position is that the reduction in view can amount to as much as a diminished value of twenty five percent (25%)of the value of the property if the proposed evening "light"view is taken fi"om the upslope home. The Appellants will provide a simple blackened mockup of the actual impairment of view ofthe proposed project. Lastly,the Appellants have requested that the current foliage if allowed to stand without a substantial reduction by trimming as is proposed under the site plan review submitted by Van Del'Zalm/Coleman further violates the statute. In closing pertinent case law also protects the type of property right the Appellants seek to protect.In the Mount Hood case (#2009-00048)the homeowner stated:"Please understand we aim to protect the wonderful view of our property as well as the underlying value associated with it".A second homeowner in that case also testified:We are committed to do whatever it takes to keep our view as it is now and not allow the remodel to depreciate the value of our home". These sentiments embody the spirit of this Appeal and the Amendment to the Appeal. Summary of Requested Actions: The following Actions are requested in bullet point fonn directly below.The analysis of those requested actions is contained in the body of this letter: I.Height:That the height of the proposed construction at the Van Del' Zalm/Coleman property be limited to 20'as per the cllntrolling section of the RPV Municipal Code Section 17.022.040Blc to preserve the Appellants'view 2 11-58 given the fact that a building pad is in existence as our Exhibits have shown and illustrated by Figure 3 in the Code. 2.Height Variation Analysis:That if the height of the subject project is not unilaterally limited that a decision on the approval of the Planning Commission be conditioned on the filing of a proper application for completion of a height variation analysis.This action should be taken pursuant to a proper permit that allows the Appellants to provide expert analysis to support their opposition to the 30'project height now being accepted; 3.Specific Findings:That in either event (whether the height is limited or the variation permit required)that the commission make specific findings on the issues of the applicability of the proper code section and the existence of a "building pad"as defined in 17.96.320 which would invoke the provisions of 17.02.040B Ic instead of the section stated in the ~~isioli ("NOD") 4.Foliage:That the existing foliage on the Van Der Zal~a':i~operty is to be trimmed immediately in accordance with the requirements of 17.02.040B3 and B4 of the Code as there is an existing violation of the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance.That a specific finding be made under section as to the reasons for the lack of any such requirement of trimming given the current condition of the property irrespective of the current application. 5.Re-Analysis and Re-Inspection re Foliage:That any decision regarding the foliage issue and the limitation as to the applicability of the proper code section is to be deferred and a property inspection by the Planning Department personnel assigned to this project be scheduled before any such determination is made. 6.Cumulative View:That any commission decision on the issue of a violation of Title 17.02.040C (d)5,6,and 8 and 17.02.040Ce (vi)be deferred until the issue the impairment of the "cumulative view"provision can be determined in light of the decision on the maximum building height; 7.Finding re Grading Permit:That a specific finding that no grading permit is required pursuant to 17.76.040 of this title (or any other applicable provision of tins code)is required based on the claimed square footage of the project (which appears to be incorrectly determined)and the number of cubic yards of soil to be removed; 8.Un-compacted Fill:The use of un-compacted fill has not been dealt with as far as the Appellants can tell.If it has not been addressed (and or a geology report compiled)then that issue should be carefully analyzed.Whether this means that caissons to bedrock are required or a similar system utilized is unknown but the Appellants raise the issue to ensure a comprehensive review for the pennit process. 1.Historical Perspective:The Appellants want to amplify on the background of the statutory scheme to provide a backdrop for the discussion by both the Planning Commission in its deliberations and at the public hearing. 3 11-59 Initially Proposition M in 1989 in the section entitled Section I "Purposes" specifically states that "the hillsides of the City constitute a limited natural resource in their scenic value to the residents and visitors to the City ..."It goes on to state under that same section that "the purpose of this ordinance is to promote the health,safety and general welfare of the public"as set forth in the following sections: I.Protects,enhances and perpetuates views available to property owners and visitors because of the unique topographical features of the Palos Verdes Peninsula ..." 4.Requires the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which alone,or in conjunction with construction,exceeds defined limits." There is additional explanatory language contained in the statute states as follows: "If the protections that are in place are not followed,views will be case by case and will be lost forever.This overriding principle has been in existence since the 1970's in Ordinance 78 adopted in 1975 and Ordinance 114 adopted in 1979. There are also other Ordinances that have been passed since that seminal ordinance which emphasize the same sentiments.While these Appellants do not wish to belabor the points of each related ordinance there are numerous City legislative acts.These amendments both serve to restate the statutory imperative of the original View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance and anlend it in ways designed to ensure that the administration of the ordinance is more precise and less subjective. A short list and description of these legislative imperatives is as follows: •Ordinance 262:(3/19/91)-restatement oflegislative purposes of preservation and authority to allow the removal of foliage where likely "trimming,culling,lacing or reducing"of foliage is likely to kill it threaten public safety;allows for removal without replacement where adverse to public health or safety (paraphrased); •Ordinance 298:(5/3/94)-preamble re visual resources,then essentially permits the adoption of the decision of the View Restoration Committee ("VRC")and provides for the referral back to the VRC for further proceedings iferror under 17.02.040 has been made or "significant new evidence is presented in conjunction with the appeal"; •Ordinance 319:(l/7/97)-substantial fourteen page restatement of View Preservation Ordinance with significant 17.02.040 restatements including but not limited to view preservation (Page 3 of 14),Section A statements on view (near and far),Section B "Regulations"re Building Height,Paragraph I,©building pad height limits of20"and need for height variation permit,B.3 "Foliage Obstruction"and viewing area requirements,C.Procedures for height variation permits"for instructions over 16 feet etc.; 4 11-60 •Ordinance 329U:(l1/18/97)-emphasizes need to protect public safety or protect foliage owner's property;emphasizes City's ability to order replacement foliage; •Ordinance 340:(5//12/98)-approval of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; •Ordinance 355:(9/5/2006)-approval re-introducing ordinance of January 4, 2000; •Ordinance 386/389 (5/20/2003)-VRC-Neighborhood Compatibility •Ordinance 405:(5/5/2004)-clarifying 16 foot height limitation and findings for height variation and grading pernlit applications; The point of the foregoing litany of ordinances is not intended to exhaust the commission but to reiterate the consistent concerns in Title 17 (including its amendments)wiili ilie historical purpose of preservation of view.A review of those ordinances will confirm tllis fact beyond tlle shadow of any doubt. After iliat a follow-up review of current Title 17 requirements as to both the procedural requirements iliat needed to be met to approve tl1is application and the substantive deficiencies in tlle current analysis under tlle Notice of Decision is needed in order to properly evaluate this application. 2.Procedural Grounds: The original appeal detailed several of the statutory grounds tllat apply to the instant case. There are however,other matters that have come to light while the Appellants have reviewed the City's NOD with respect to the pending project since December.These issues are deserving of mention and consideration by the Plarming Commission before the instant project is approved. A.Numerous Errors in the Notice of Decision:The Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Pem1it #ZON2009-00 I 08 was initiated on March 10,20 I0 and went tl1rough numerous revisions at the request of the Plarming Department throughout the course of 2010 until completed apparently on August 10,2010.The Notice of Decision was issued on November 29,2010 and appealed timely on December 13,2010 by the Appellants Hazel Di Santo and Rose Marie Di Santo. There have been numerous elTors of fact and mathematical calculation in the process as it has moved forward tl1rough several amended applications for approval during 2010, many of which have not been addressed on a procedmal or substantive level by the PI arming Department. The Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Pem1it Application is not accurate e!l3ea en the BgoHfeS StlBfHittea e,the ftJ'lllie!lllt !lila the HgtI!es shewn en the 8sseSSSf weasite 8S ts Bejtlflle fflet!lge efthe lot.At least one example of the inaccurate analysis is ilie difference 5 11-61 in simple square footage calculations between the applicant and the Planning Department {i.e.25BB>'LB1B). Zo,S""OD /'2.0 01 C>Arr/,'c.......f I Additional examples are as f~J,I.o-,~'s.:._.J. •The statement in th~m~~wis that this is an RS-3 zone when it is actually an RS-2 zone;the lot coverage calculations are different (45%as to 40%) etc; •The proposed increase in the height of the project (based on measurement from the "building pad")exceeds the statutory standard and per se requires a height variation application. •Site plan review does not mention existing playhouse of 120 square feet as part of the calculation submitted to the City-this changes the computation on the lot coverage; •The Statement in the Site Plan Review Form does not accurately reflect the building footprint and the lot coverage (and therefore the percentage oflot coverage); •Construction within a legal easement is not allowed without permission from the holder of the easement and after review by the City Attorney (17.48.030); B.Summary List of Additional Substantive Grounds for Denial of ApplicationlReversal of NOD: •Building Height Variation Requires Application •Incorrect Foliage Analysis: •Grading Permit Required (17.76.040) •Silhouette Certification Form deficient; •Easement Analysis C.Exhibits:The Exhibits attached to the back of this Amended Appeal are indicative of the extreme impact the proposed construction by the applicant will have on the view of the Di Santo residence.The statutory requirements having been mentioned it is a simple fact that an inordinate amount of the view long held by the Di Santos will result in both a psychological taking and a substantial diminution in the value of the residence by any customary method of appraisal. Conclusion There are substantial procedural and substantive errors in the Notice of Decision of November 29,20lO.The review of this project is conclusary at best.There are significant omissions in terms of the analysis and the "fmdings"contained therein 6 11-62 relating to the application of incorrect provisions of the code as to height,foliage,view impairment and grading issues. It is also noted that the proposed project is essentially inconsistent with the stated purposes of the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance as to its basic tenet of keeping the character of the neighborhood intact. In essence the approval of the project as it stands would rubberstamp a construction project that is not compliant with the code and provide a pathway for the approval of other projects of a similar nature in derogation of the fundamental mandate of the ordinance and its many amendments. For these reasons the Planning Commission should reject the requested permit, utilize its discretion to demand further analysis and investigation into the true nature of the proposed construction. Respectfully,submitted Dated:February 27,2011 Steven E.Wohn Attorney for Appellants Hazel and Rose Marie Di Santo 7 11-63 This is the main living area of the house where we enjoy the beautiful view.1.The proposed project will permanently block the entire city view from the city view's bottom to its top.2.The Queen's necklace,Malibu and the ocean are behind foliage to the left of the garage.3.The garage already takes out the entire city view from the city view's bottom to its top,and higher.If the roof of the garage were to be removed,the walls would still be 35 to 40% into the city view.4.Not too long in the future the entire view area left of the garage will be gone.5.These are the houses,in the very least,that could cause significant cumulative view impairment. 11-64 Copy of Director's Notice of Decision (dated November 29,2010) 11-65 CIlY OF PlANNING,BUILDING,&CODE ENFORCEMENT November 29,2010 NOTICE OF DECISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has approved Case No. ZON2009-00 108 (Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit)to allow the construction of a 512 square foot addition to the upper level of the home,a 1,092 square foot addition to the entry level of the home and a 501 square foot addition to the lower level of the home.The project also includes the construction of a 74 square foot deck off the proposed kitchen and a deck for trash cans north of the garage Location:21 Cayuse Lane Applicant:Rllssell Barto Property Owner:Mr.and Mrs.Coleman Said permit is subject to the following conditions of approval: General Conditions 1.Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check,the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement,in writing,that they have read,understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below.Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90)days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2.Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check,the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works for any curb cuts,dumpsters in the street or any other temporary or permanent improvements within the pUblic rights-of-way. 3.Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations,or any Federal,State,County and/or City laws and regulations.Unless otherwise expressly specified,all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4.This approval is for the construction of 512 square feet to the upper level of the home,1,092 square feet to the entry level of the home and 501 square feet to the lower level of the home.The project also includes the construction of a 74 square foot deck off the proposed kitchen and a deck for trash cans north of the garage.The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions.Otherwise,any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision to the Site Plan Review and 30940 H\\VIHOI?NF BlVD.I RANCHO PAl.Ot VmIXS.CA 00275·5391 l'IANNINrJcoDE ENFQI/CEMENI (310)544-5228 I BUILDING (3101265-7800 I DEP!.FAX (310)544-5293 I E-MAIL PLANNING@RIVCOM11-66 Notice of Decision:ZON2009-00108 November 29,2010 Extreme Slope Permit Case No.ZON2009-001 08 by the Director and shall require new and separate environmental review. 5.The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or,if not addressed herein,shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code,including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6.Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 7.If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one hundred eighty days (180)of the final effective date of the Notice of Decision,approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration,a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Director and approved by the Director. 8.In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department,the stricter standard shall apply. 9.Unless otherwise designated in these conditions,all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of the Notice of Decision. 10.The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes.Such excess material may include,but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris,garbage,lumber,scrap metal,concrete asphalt,piles of earth, salvage materials,abandoned or discarded furniture,appliances or other household fixtures. 11.Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,Monday through Saturday,with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.Trucks shall not park,queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM,Monday through Saturday,in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. 12.Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications,the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 45%lot coverage (29.2%proposed)and the following setbacks from the applicable property lines: Page 2 11-67 Notice of Decision:ZON2009-0010B November 29,2010 Front 20 feet (20 feet proposed) Side 5 feet (5 feet proposed) Rear 15 feet (70+feet proposed) 13.Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 14.A minimum 2-car garage shall be maintained,with each required parking space being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth,with a minimum of 7 feet of vertical clearance. 15.Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. 16.All landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 17.All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure,safe,neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official.Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval ofthe City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. 18.The proposed addition shall not exceed 16'in height,as measured from the average elevation of the front setback line (84 feet)to the top of the highest ridgeline and 30'as measure from the lowest adjacent grade to the top of the highest ridgeline.Specifically,the proposed addition will result in a maximum height of 10'-11"as measured from the average elevation of the setback line covered by the structure (84.22')to the highest ridgeline (95.14')and 30'-0"as measured from the lowest grade covered by structure (65.14')to the top of the highest ridgeline (95.14'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED.A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION.CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ROOF FRAMING/SHEETING INSPECTION. 19.All applicable permits required by the Building and Safety Division shall be obtained by the applicant prior to the commencement of construction. Page 3 11-68 Notice of Decision:ZON2009-00108 November 29,2010 Extreme Slope Permit 20.The decks shall not extend more than a maximum of 5'-0"beyond the top of the extreme slope (greater than 35%slope). Any interested person may appeal this decision,in writing,to the Planning Commission by December 13,2010.A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal.The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant.The Department hours are from 7:30 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.,Monday through Thursday,and 7:30 a.m.to 4:30 p.m.Friday. If you have any questions concerning this matter,please contact Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner, at (310)544-5228,or via e-mail at/ezam@rpv.com. Joel Rojas,AICP Community Development Director Cc:Russ Barto /3 Malaga Cove Plaza,Suite 202/Palos Verdes Estates,CA 90275 Rose Marie Di Santo /13 Cayuse Lane /Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Hazel Di Santo /17 Cayuse Lane /Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Craig Edgecumbe /2780 Skypark Dr.,Suite 325/Torrance,CA 90505-5350 Page 4 11-69 Original 8taff Report to the Director (dated November 4,2010) 11-70 CITY OF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR LEZA MIKHAIL,ASSOCIATE PLANNE@ NOVEMBER 4,2010 SITE PLAN REVIEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT CASE NO.ZON2009·00108 21 CAYUSE; APPLICANT:CARINA COLEMAN RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Director of Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement approve the Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit applications for Case No. ZON2009-00108,subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "AU). BACKGROUND On March 24,2009,the applicant submitted applications for a Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope permit to the Community Development Department for review and processing.The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 2,105 square foot addition to the existing 2,759 square foot residence.The project also includes a new 74 square foot deck along the north side of the residence,a portion of which will extend a maximum of 5'_Ou beyond the top of an existing extreme slope. On April 14,2009,staff completed the initial review of the application,at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans. The applicant submitted revised plans and/or additional information to Staff on many occasions,first on April 16,2009,then on April 20,2009,July 12,2010 and finally on September 7,2010 when the silhouette was constructed and the Silhouette Certification Form was submitted to Staff. After a site inspection of the silhouette,Staff deemed th'e application complete for processing on September 14,2010.On November 11,2010,the applicant granted a one-time 90-day extension to the Permit Streamlining Act.Staff mailed notices to 61 11-71 SITE PLAN REIVEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT(CASE NO.ZON2009-00108) 21 Cayuse Lane November 4,2010 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property,providing a 15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns.In addition,a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on September 23,2010.The public commenting period expired on October 8,2010.Staff received four (4)written comment letters discussed under the "Additional Information"section of this report. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is a 20,010 square foot hillside lot that slopes down from the street of access.The property is located along the east side of Cayuse Lane,north of Bronco Lane and just east of Chaparral Lane,in the RS-3 zone (Single-Family Residential).The subject property is currently improved with a 2,759 square foot two-story residence and a 441 square foot detached garage with access from Cayuse Lane.The property also has a 367 square foot detached accessory structure/garage at the rear of the residence that does not have a building permit. The footprint of the existing single-family residence is 1,784 square feet.The detached garage (441 square feet),accessory structure (367 square feet),and driveway and impervious surface areas (2,775 square feet)encompass 3,583 square feet.The development code specifies lot coverage to include any building or structure,decks over 30 inches in height and parking areas or driveways.Therefore,the existing lot coverage of the subject property is 5,461 square feet,or 27%of the 20,010 square foot lot. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project would involve the construction of a 512 square foot addition between the detached garage and the existing residence,thereby connecting the two structures into one structure.In addition,the applicant is proposing a 1,092 square foot addition to the entry level of the residence and a 501 square foot addition to the lower level of the existing residence.The new residence would total 4,864 square feet of habitable area and a 441 square foot garage.The project would also include the demolition of the existing accessory structure in the rear yard and the construction of a new 400 square foot covered patio with a 135 square foot storage shed beneath.A new 74 square foot deck would be constructed along the north side of the residence,a portion of which would extend 5'-0"beyond the top of an existing extreme slope. Due to the fact that the property is considered a hillside property (greater than 5% slope)that slopes down from the street of access (Cayuse Lane),the height of the structure shall be measured from the average elevation of the front setback line to the highest ridgeline of the structure (RPVMC 17.02.040.B.1.b). Residences on hillside properties are permitted "by right"to construct a home that does not exceed 16'-0"in height from the highest grade elevation covered by the struCture to the highest ridgeline and 30'-0"in height from the lowest grade covered by the structure to the highest PAGE 2 11-72 SITE PLAN REIVEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT(CASE NO.ZON2009-00108) 21 Cayuse Lane November 4,2010 ridgeline.The applicant is proposing to lower the overall ridgeline height of the garage to meet this "by right"height requirement.As such,the overall height of the residence will reach a maximum height of 10'-11 ",as measured from the average elevation of the setback line (approximately 84.22')to the top of the highest ridgeline (elev.95.14'),and 30'-0"as measured from the lowest grade covered by structure (elev.65.14')to the top of the highest ridgeline of the residence (elev.95.14'). Since the proposed improvements would include an addition over 750 square feet,a Neighborhood Compatibility finding with Director's approval is required.An Extreme Slope Permit is required to allow a portion of the 74 square foot deck to extend beyond the top of an extreme slope (greater than 35%slope). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),under Article 19,Section 15303(e)(2)(additiohs)of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically,the project includes the minor addition and alteration to an existing structure that will not result in a structure that exceeds 10,000 square feet. Further,the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available and the project is not located in an environmentally sensitive area.As such,this project has been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment. STAFF ANALYSIS Site Plan Review The required development standards for the proposed project are shown in the table below. Table l'Development Code Matrix DEVELOPMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENT ~ISTING PROPOSED Front Yard Setback 20'25'-0"25'-0" Rear Yard Setback 15'67'-10"67'-10" Side Yard Setback (North)5'15'-0"15'-0" Side Yard Setback (South)5'35'-0"35'-0" Max.Lot Coverage 45%27%29.2% Height:Main Residence (Highest Elevation/Lowest 16'130'N/A 10'-11"/30'-0" Elevation) Height:Accessory Structure 12'Unknown 12'(Rear Yard Deck) PAGE 3 11-73 SITE PLAN REIVEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT(CASE NO.ZON2009-00108) 21 Cayuse Lane November 4,2010 As described in Table 1 above,Staff has determined that the proposed 4,864 square foot new residence,the 441 square foot garage,the new 74 square foot deck and 135 square foot accessory structure would comply with the required residential setback standards,lot coverage and the maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS-3 zone.Specifically,the new residence will be well outside of the required 15-foot rear yard setback (67'-10").The residence will maintain the existing 25'-0'front yard setback,15'-0"north side yard setback and 35'-0"south side yard setback.The new deck along the north side yard would have a 5'-0"side yard setback.Further,with a new roof,the main residence would not exceed the 16'/30'"by right"building envelope (10'-11 "/30'-0"proposed height).The rear yard accessory structure would not exceed the maximum allowable height of 12 feet for an accessory structure,per Section 17.48.050.0 of the Municipal Code and would have a 5'-0"south side yard setback and 23'-6"rear yard setback. When combined,the new residence,garage,deck,accessory structure,driveway and impervious surfaces areas would ultimately increase the building footprint on the residential lot.The new improvements would yield a total lot coverage of 6,654 square feet,or 33%of the 20,010 square foot lot.As such,the proposed residence,deck and accessory structure would comply with the maximum allowable lot coverage,setbacks and building heights in the RS-3 zone,and Staff has determined that the Site Plan Review application can be approved. Neighborhood Compatibility Municipal Code Section 17.02.030(B)(1)(b)requires a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis whenever a new residence is proposed to replace an existing residence.As the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing flat roofed,single-story residence and construct a new single-story residence,a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis was completed.The Municipal Code defines neighborhood character to include:a)the scale of surrounding residences,b)architectural styles and materials of the surrounding area, and c)the front,side,and rear yard setbacks. Table 2:Neighborhood Compatibility and Analysis Matrix AlllDRESS I!.O]S~'Sl'RUCiliURE,.,SI2!E 1 Cayuse 19,722 2,360 4 Cayuse 20,573 2,697 3 Cayuse 18,852 3,180 6 Cayuse 20,861 4,094*** 2 Cayuse 26,871 3,028* 14 Cayuse 23,483 2,934 PAGE 4 11-74 SITE PLAN REIVEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT(CASE NO.ZON2009-001 08) 21 Cayuse Lane November 4,2010 9 Cayuse 20,211 4,062**** 13 Cayuse 20,392 3,510 17 Cayuse 20,341 2,980** 11 Cayuse 21,132 3,931* 15 Cayuse 20,393 3,745* 28438 Cayuse 20,424 2,660** 22 Cayuse 21,051 5,529 28431 Cayuse 20,573 3,122 28419 Cayuse 23,140 2,806* 28411 Cayuse 24,248 2,351* 28428 Cayuse 22,067 3,152 28414 Cayuse 23,087 3,051 29 Cayuse 22,328 3,399* 28402 Cayuse 25,592 3,149' Average 21,767 3,281 21 Cayuse Existing 20,500 3,567 Proposed 5,440..Due to the fact that no bUilding permits were on file for thIs property,the bUilding square footage was taken from the Assessor information. ...A building permit is on file for a horse barn without an actual square footage disclosed.Therefore,this structure size does not include the square footage of the horse bam. This square foolage includes an expired permit for a 510 square foot structure for a boat storage that was buill,but never finaled. u"This square footage includes an expired permit for a 1,062 square foot basement that was buill in 196B,but never finaled. As noted in the table above,the size of homes in the neighborhood range in size from 2,351 square feet to 5,529 square feet,with the average home size being 3,281 square feet.While the square footage of the new residence (proposed at 5,440 square feet)is larger than the average of the 20 closest homes,the square footage of the new residence will not exceed the largest existing home. In terms of scale,the new additions will be proportional to the neighboring residences, therefore keeping with the original character,style and setting of the neighborhood.The bulk and mass of the proposed improvements would not be significant,in terms of compatibility,due to the single-story configuration of the proposed home as seen from the street.Furthermore,due to the topography in the neighborhood and the fact that the subject property slopes downhill from the street by 20-25 feet,the majority of the additions would not be easily visible from other properties and would match the existing two story residence.The applicant is providing a large 15'-0"setback from the north side property line and a 35'-0"setback from the south side property line.One addition would be located behind the existing garage and the other addition would be located at the rear of the residence.As such,staff feels that the scale of the proposed residence is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. PAGE 5 11-75 SITE PLAN REIVEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT(CASE NO.ZON2009-00108j 21 Cayuse Lane November 4,2010 Staff feels the architectural style and materials proposed are consistent with the existing residence and character of the immediate neighborhood.For example,the applicant is proposing to utilize composite shingles as the roof material on the new roof to match the existing roof and a stucco finish to match the existing fayade treatment.A stone veneer Is proposed along portions of the residence which is also compatible with other decorative accents that are found throughout the neighborhood. The proposed project will meet all the required setbacks for the zoning District. Specifically,the new residence will be well outside of the required 15-foot rear yard setback (67'-10").The residence will maintain the existing 25'-0'front yard setback,15'- 0"north side yard setback and 35'-0"south side yard setback.The new deck along the north side yard would have a 5'-0"side yard setback.This is compatible to the existing setbacks as well as setbacks found throughout the neighborhood Based on the above analysis,Staff concludes that the proposed additions would not negatively alter the character of the existing residence and would produce a residence that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Extreme Slope Permit Municipal Code Section 17.48.060 states,"No development or construction of any structure shall be allowed on any extreme slope (grade of thirty-five percent or greater), except as follows:A)Trash enclosures,enclosed mechanical equipment or pool equipment located within an area of less than fifty square feet;provided,that the structures and/or equipment are not located more than six feet from the top or toe of the slope and are adequately screened from view from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the director;B.)Structures and improvements allowed pursuant to Section 17.76.060 (Extreme slope permit);C)Satellite dish antennas allowed pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas and satellite dishes);0)Grading and retaining walls allowed pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading permit);E)Fences, walls and hedges allowed pursuant to Section 17.76.030 (Fences,walls and hedges); and F)At grade steps or stairs less than six inches in height,as measured from adjacent existing grade." Pursuant to subsection 'B'of this section,the applicant has applied for an Extreme Slope Permit to allow a portion of a 74 square foot deck to extend 5 feet beyond the top of an extreme slope along the north side of the subject residence.Per Municipal Code Section 17.76.060,a deck may extend or cantilever a maximum of 6 feet into the extreme slope area provided the following five findings (in bold type)are adopted: a.That the site cannot reasonably accommodate the structure except on an extreme slope. PAGE 6 11-76 SITE PLAN REIVEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT(CASE NO.ZON2009-00108) 21 Cayuse Lane November 4,2010 The proposed deck is intended to be used as an outdoor eating and barbecue area adjacent to the kitchen.Although there are other areas on the site that could accommodate a table and portable barbecue,those areas are far from the kitchen and are located on the lower floor area.Proximity to the kitchen is important for transporting food back and forth,and there is no other location on site that offers that proximity.Additionally,decks that extend over extreme slopes are common in the surrounding hillside neighborhood.If the applicant reduced the size of the deck so that no portions of the deck could extend beyond the top of the previously existing extreme slope,the deck would only be 5'-0"to 1'-0"feet wide and could not reasonably accommodate an outside table.Furthermore,there is an existing deck located in the same area whereby a portion of the deck will be removed for the construction of the kitchen.Therefore,Staff feels that this finding can be made. b.That the permit will result in no significant adverse effect on neighboring properties.Factors to be considered in making this finding shall include: view impairment,visual impact,slope instability,increased runoff and other adverse impacts found to be significant. As part of the building and safety review of the deck and associated supporting walls,the applicant will need to obtain approval from the City's Geologist ensuring that the new deck and support walls will not create a negative geological impact to the area.Additionally,the applicant will need to satisfy the City's Building Official ensuring that the deck has been engineered and constructed in a manner that meets the requirements of the Building Code.Further,in addition to the structural aspects of the deck,Staff conducted a view and visual analysis of the proposed deck,and concluded that the deck would have no adverse impact to views as seen from neighboring properties.The deck will not be easily visible from other properties due to the topography in the surrounding neighborhood and existing foliage on the subject property that obstructs visibility of the deck.Therefore,this finding can be made. c.That the structure will not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. In regards to assessing privacy impacts,the proposed deck would only potentially affect the property to the north,at 28438 Cayuse Lane.The residential pad for the neighbors property is over 30 feet below the subject property.Although a portion of the neighbors rear yard and spa will be more visible from the northeast portion of the proposed deck,the views into the neighbor's property will be no more of an infringement than existing views into the neighbor's yard from other areas of the subject residence.In fact,the views from the proposed deck into the neighbor's backyard will be less of an infringement than views from the existing living room and deck off the rear of the subject house.Therefore,the deck will not result in an PAGE 7 11-77 SITE PLAN REIVEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT(CASE NO.ZON2009-0010S) 21 Cayuse Lane November 4,2010 unreasonable infringement of the privacy to the occupants of abutting residences and this finding can be made. d.That any disturbance of the slope will be insignificant. The foundation of the proposed deck would be located at the top of the extreme slope.Furthermore,the construction associated with the deck and support walls will be required to be reviewed by the City Geologist and Building Official.As such,it is Staff's opinion that the disturbances to the slope are not likely to be significant and this finding can be made. e.That the permit is consistent with the general plan,coastal specific plan or any other applicable plan. According to the General Plan,"It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to preserve and e.nhance the community's quality living environment;to enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods;and to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of a/l present and future residents of the community."Through the approval of an Extreme Slope Permit for the proposed deck,the project will adequately serve the needs of the property owner by allowing him/her to have a sufficient,functional, useable and adequate access to outdoor eating area from the kitchen area of the home.Additionally,the project will not have a negative impact to the visual character and physical quality of the existing neighborhood.As such,Staff feels that approving the deck will be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan and therefore this finding can be adopted. For the above-mentioned reasons,Staff believes that the granting of an Extreme Slope Permit is warranted for the proposed project because all four (4)required findings can be made. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Foliage Analysis As the additions would create more than 120 square feet of habitable space,a foliage analysis was triggered.On November 4,2010,Staff conducted a foliage analysis of the subject property.During this analysis,Staff noted that no trees significantly impair the view from a viewing area of an adjoining property. PAGES 11-78 SITE PLAN REIVEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT(CASE NO.ZON2009-00108) 21 Cayuse Lane November 4,2010 Public Notice As a result of the Pubic Notice,Staff received four separate comment letters.The first comment letter was from Laura Goddard,property owner of 5 Cayuse Lane,who was in support of the proposed project.Staff also received a comment letter from Hazel Disanto,property owner at 17 Cayuse Lane,located just south of the subject property. The third comment letter was received from Craig Edgecumbe,an attorney representing the property owners of 13 Cayuse Lane (Rose Marie Di Santo)and 17 Cayuse Lane.In their letters,the two neighbors at 13 and 17 Cayuse expressed concerns with neighborhood compatibility,view impairment,increased noise,traffic,parking and privacy irnpacts.Additionally,these two property owners also expressed concerns regarding easement access at the rear of the property.A fourth letter was received from the architect in response to the attorney's letter. As noted in the analysis above,the subject property is considered a downsloping lot, whereby the height of the structure shall be measured from the average elevation of the setback line abutting the street of access to the ridgeline or the highest point of the structure.This type of lot allows a property owner to construct a residence "by-right" with a maximum height of 16'-0"as measured from the average elevation of the setback line abutting the street of access and 30'-0"from the lowest grade adjacent to the structure without the approval of a Height Variation.Thus,because the proposed project meets the "by-right"height limits and a Height Variation is not required,no view analysis or privacy impact analysis related to the addition was conducted.Furthermore,Staff believes that any increase in noise,traffic or parking would be negligible due to the fact that the existing property is currently developed with a single-family residence and the proposed project includes an addition to the existing residence.The additions would be compatible with other homes in the surrounding neighborhood as discussed in this staff report.Lastly,regarding the neighbor's concerns with access to the subject property via an existing easement near the rear property line,the existing residence has an illegal storage garage/shed that is currently accessed from the an existing access easement at rear property line.During the review of the project,Staff noted to the property owner that they would have to prove that legal access is available to the existing illegal garage in order to legalize the structure.Due to the fact that the property owner was not able to prove legal access,they proposed to demolish the illegal structure and construct a new storage shed and covered patio in the same location.As such,the applicant is not proposing a structure that requires legal access for the purposes of ingress and egress to the accessory structures at the rear of the property. It should also be noted that the architect for the subject property,Mr.Russ Barto, submitted a letter in response to the attorney's letter,whereby he refutes some claims presented in the letter representing the property owners of 13 Cayuse and 17 Cayuse. Furthermore,the architect has provided evidence that the entire project can be constructed from the legal access at Cayuse Lane. PAGE 9 11-79 SITE PLAN REIVEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT(CASE NO.ZON2009-00108) 21 Cayuse Lane November 4,2010 CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion,Staff believes that the proposed new additions would be compatible with the immediate neighborhood and would comply with the applicable standards of the City's Development Code.Additionally,the proposed new deck in the rear yard would provide a functional and useable eating area just off the proposed kitchen.As such,Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 4,999 square foot residence with a 441 square foot attached garage.Concurrently,Staff recommends approval of the Extreme Slope Permit,for construction of a new 74 square foot deck just off the proposed kitchen and a deck for a trash area just north of the garage.In total,Staff recommends that the Director approve Case No.ZON2009-00108 for a Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit,subject to the conditions contained in the attached Exhibit "A". ALTERNATIVES The alternatives available for consideration by the Community Development Director include: 1.Approve the Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit applications (Case No. ZON2009-00108),subject to the conditions of approval as set forth in Exhibit "A" (Staff's Recommendation);or 2.Approve the Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit applications (Case No. ZON2009-00108),as submitted;or 3.Deny,without prejudice,the Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit applications (Case No.ZON2009-001 08). Approved pursuant to Alternative No.1. Accepted: Joel Rojas Communi Attachments:1) 2) Exhibit "A"-Conditions of Approval Public Correspondence PAGE 10 11-80 SITE PLAN REIVEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT(CASE NO.ZON2009-00108) 21 Cayuse Lane November 4,2010 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE PLAN REVIEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT (CASE NO.ZON2009-00108) General Conditions 1.Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check,the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement,in writing,that they have read,understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below.Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90)days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2.Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check,the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works for any curb cuts, dumpsters in the street or any other temporary or permanent improvements within the public rigJits-of-way. 3.Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations,or any Federal,State,County and/or City laws and regulations.Unless otherwise expressly specified,all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4.This approval is for the construction of 512 square feet to the upper level of the home,1,092 square feet to the entry level of the home and 501 square feet to the lower level of the home.The project also includes the construction of a 74 square foot deck off the proposed kitchen and a deck for trash cans north of the garage. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions.Otherwise,any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision to the Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit Case No.ZON2009-00108 by the Director and shall require new and separate environmental review. 5.The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or,if not addressed herein,shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height,setback and lot coverage standards. 6.Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project ptJrsuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. PAGE 11 11-81 SITE PLAN REIVEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT(CASE NO.ZON2009-00108) 21 Cayuse Lane November 4,2010 7.If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one hundred eighty days (180)of the final effective date of the Notice of Decision,approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless,prior to expiration,a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Director and approved by the Director. 8.In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department,the stricter standard shall apply. 9.Unless otherwise designated in these conditions,all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of the Notice of Decision. 10.The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes.Such excess material may include,but not be limited to:the accumulation of debris,garbage,lumber,scrap metal,concrete asphalt,piles of earth,salvage materials,abandoned or discarded furniture,appliances or other household fixtures. 11.Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday,with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.Trucks shall not park,queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM,Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. 12.Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications,the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 45%lot coverage (29.2%proposed)and the following setbacks from the applicable property lines: Front 20 feet (20 feet proposed) Side 5 feet (5 feet proposed) Rear 15 feet (70+feet proposed) 13.Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 14.A minimum 2-car garage shall be maintained,with each required parking space PAGE 12 11-82 SITE PLAN REIVEW &EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT(CASE NO.ZON2009-00108) 21 Cayuse Lane November 4,2010 being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth,with a minimum of 7 feet of vertical clearance. 15.Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. 16.All landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques,either through screening and/or watering. 17.All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure,safe,neat and orderly manner.Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official.Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to tbe approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. 18.The proposed addition shall not exceed 16'in height,as measured from the average elevation of the front setback line (84 feet)to the top of the highest ridgeline and 30'as measure from the lowest adjacent grade to the top of the highest ridgeline.Specifically,the proposed addition will result in a maximum height of 10'-11"as measured from the average elevation of the setback line covered by the structure (84.22')to the highest ridgeline (95.14')and 30'-0"as measured from the lowest grade covered by structure (65.14')to the top of the highest ridgeline (95.14'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED.A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ROOF FRAMING/SHEETING INSPECTION. 19.All applicable permits required by the Building and Safety Division shall be obtained by the applicant prior to the commencement of construction. Extreme Slope Permit 20.The decks shall not extend more than a maximum of 5'-0"beyond the top of the extreme slope (greater than 35%slope). PAGE 13 11-83 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From:laura goddard [Ia_goddard@yahoo.com] Sent:Monday,October 04,20107:57 AM To: lezam@rpv.com Subject:Fw:case #zon2009-00108/21 Cayuse Lane ---On Mon,10/4/10,laura goddard <Ja_goddard@yalzoo.colII>wrote: From:laura goddard <la_goddard@yahoo.com> Subject:case #zon2009-00 108 121 Cayuse Lane To:kitf@rpv.com Date:Monday,October 4,2010,7:55 AM This is Laura Goddard at 5 cayuse lane.Regardless of what I went throughh with my project,I am an objective person and I believe that the owner,Carina Coleman,has the right to add and improve her home.I have no objection to this project.Wish the owner good luck. 10/412010 11-84 Dear Community Development Director, RECEIVELJ OCT 08 2010 PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Oct DB,2010 Re:Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit (CASE NO.ZON2009-0010B)at 21 Cayuse Lane.I oppose approval for this request,based on the fact that my view will be totally lost.I am the neighbor to the south and uphill from 21 Cayuse Lane.I live at 17 Cayuse Lane.I enclose pictures to support my claim of lost view.These were taken from two levels of my home.I spoke to Marsha by phone this morning,as I have Parkinson's Disease,and speak very slowly.This letter is sent for the attention of Marsha and Leza.This letter was dictated by me to my grandson Joe. Sincerely, Hazel Disanto )/....L j)<-:J---r.:-; 11-85 11-86 I·.-~~.__._..._.______.' ----_._- 11-87 Craig Edgecumbe RECEIVED OCT 12 2010 PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT From:Craig Edgecumbe Sent:Friday,October 08,201012:06 PM To:'Iezam@rpv.com' Subject:FW:CASE NO.:ZON2009-00108/0UR CLIENTS:01 SANTO (13 and 17 CAYUSE LANE) Importance:High Attachments:DiSanto -Letter to City of RPV 10081 O.pdf;DiSanto -Case No ZON2009-001 08.pdf Dear Leza, As stated in my email earlier today,attached is the response letter on behalf of my clients and attachments to the letter (including map and photos). If you have any questions,please contact me. Thank you. Regards, Craig H.Edgecumbe *****************.************.****************** The Edgecumbe Law Firm A Law Corporation 2780 Skypark Drive,Suite 325 Torrance,CA 90505 (10)784-2512 (B) (310)784-2513 (F)cs'!ig@~dgecumi:Lelaw.com Listed in the Martindale-Hubbell Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers The infoIll1ation contained in this e-mail message is attomey-privileged and confidential information intended only tor lh~use of the individual or entity named above.If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in elTor,please immediately notifY us by telephone at (310)784-2512 or e-mail and delete tllis e-mail message.Thank you for your cooperation. From:Craig Edgecumbe [mailto:craig@edgecumbelaw,com] Sent:Friday,October 08,2010 8:12 AM To:'Iezam@rpv.com' Subject:CASE NO.:ZON2009-00108/0UR CLIENTS:Dr SANTO (13 and 17 CAYUSE LANE) Importance:High Dear Leza, Please see attached.Photos will be sent later today,and hard copy of the letter and photos also to be mailed to you today. Please confirm you have received this email. 10/8/20 I0 11-88 THE EDGECUMBE LAW FIRM A LAW CORPORATION THE All=lPORT ATRIUM BUll-DING 2780 SKYPARK DRIVE craig@edgecumbelaw.com www.edgecumbelaw.com October 8,2010 SUITE .325 TORRANCE.CALIFORNIA 90505-5350 Telephone (31 0)784-251 2 Facsimile (310)784-251 3 VIA EMAIL (lezam@rpv.com)ANDU.S.MAIL Joel Rojas,AlCP Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") Planning,Building and Code Enforcement RE:Case No.: Location: Property Owner: Subject: My Clients: Dear Mr.Rojas, ZON2009-00108 21 Cayuse Lane (the "Proper'ty") Carina Coleman Section 17.02.030.B of City MC ("Ncighbor'hood Compatibility") Section 17.02.040 of City MC ("View P,'cse,'vation") Rose Marie Di Santo (13 Cayuse Lane) Hazel Di Santo (17 Cayuse Lane) This fiml has been retained to represent the owners of 13 and 17 Cayuse Lane with regard to the captioned case.My clients'concerns relate to violations of the Neighborhood Compatibility and View Preservation ordinances of the City,as well as potential trespass on their private easement accessible only from Cayuse Lane. The owners of the Property have requested a pennit to construct a 2,105 square foot addition to the existing 2,759 square foot residence,along with a new 74 square foot deck along the north side of the Property.The Property,if the pemlit is granted,would constitute almost 5,000 square feet (4,838),a 235%increase in size. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY My clients oppose the scope of the proposed development of the Property because it is substantially incompatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood,which is composed of single-story homes,one on a lot,which average 2,300 square feet. Clearly,a residence of 4,864 square feet,plus a 74 square foot deck,is incompatible with the small single-level home character of the local area.[fconstructed,the Property will result in excessive neighborhood noise,traffic,parking and ptivacy problems for my clients.The proposed structure would be 2 1/3 times larger than the homes in the immediate area based on square footage,once you eliminate 22 Cayuse Lane as a comparative unit,since 22 Cayuse Lane pre-dates the incorporation of the City and the compatibility legislation ofthe City at Section 17.02.030B.Further,22 Cayuse Lane is not a single-family residence,so to use it to justifY approval of the proposed structure is inappropriate. DOC.DlSANTO.2 t .Lener.l 007 t O.Rojas.doc 11-89 THE EDGECUMBE LAW FIRM A LAW CORPORATION City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Page 2 The proposed Property appears to permit parking for at least 4 or 5 cars,almost doubling the traffic on Cayuse Lane.An increase in the vehicles using Cayuse violates City Code 17.60.050, i.e.,that the proposed site must "relate to streets and highways.sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use." VIEW PRESERVATION Based on the enclosed photos of the silhouettes now in place,taken from my client's residences, it is quite apparent that my clients'views would be substantially impacted in violation of Section 17.02.040. POTENTIAL TRESPASS ON PRIVATE EASEMENT My clients advise me that 13 Cayuse is only accessible from the private easement off Cayuse, and that 17 Cayuse is accessible from both Cayuse and the private easement.The Property is accessible off Cayuse,but my clients allege that the Property does not have any legal right to use of the private easement off Cayuse. My clients also have concel11s regarding access to the Property.Access to the Property is fi'ol11 the public right of way of Cayuse Lane located near the applicant's garage.As noted above,the applicants have no rights to the private easement adjacent to my clients'properties.It is difficult to imagine how construction workers and equipment would access the Property given the extreme grade up to the Property from Cayuse.Certainly,my clients have no intention of granting pelll1ission to pass on the private easement to construction workers or others who have no legal rights to the easement off. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me. Very trul y yours, .R.~~/{,,/~.~~-~=."... Craig H.ECigecul11be CHE:ss Enclosures C:Client (w/out encl -via email) DOC.DtSANTO.2 t.Lener.t 007 to.Rojos.doc 11-90 Page I of I file:l/C:\Documents and Settings\Craig EdgeclIlllbe\Local Senings\Tel11porary Internet rile...7/15/2009 11-91 11-92 ~~kc~V\OM-~~n~'-'~~"t...,,~ VOlw;\....-IT-..,,~,"~,I."".~I\."""",~~\f\• .t'T Cct.'1'-4 ~~.""'O~.'....". 'Ie '..")\"1~'-•.',;-.1 ~H -:..~!'S I~••(.,1..•.' 11-93 ~(1 G ..~~~Cr l.Ab'- Look'l1~\.\o~'-h """"'-'~'"no\-'~"~e.t~ ""'\\\dow ~W\So~~"~~O\0.(:krkh.h,., -t\t v.",~~el\k ,~~~e""<.c..~·r ~~~k: 'J'-!-",-IL...';':1'_._.'.i-~~\~d\~\~V'~ 11-94 Russell E.Barto .AlA 3 Malaga Cove Plaza October 14,2010 .Architect Suite 202 .Palos Verdes Estates .California .90274 .(310)378-1355 Leza M ikhai I Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 RE:21 Cayuse Lane (Van Del'Zalm) ZON 2009-00 I 08 Dear Leza: I stopped by your office this morning to review the materials submitted by Craig Edgecumbe, attorney for the residents at 13 Cayuse Lane and 17 Cayuse Lane,in opposition to the Van Del'Zalm application.I'm writing to respond to several inaccurate statements in Mr.Edgecumbe's letter. In the second paragraph,Mr.Edgecumbe states that a 2,I 05 sq.ft.addition to the existing 2,759 sq.ft.residence represents a "235%increase in size."Mr.Edgecumbe's arithmetic is incorrect; the addition represents a 76%illcrease in size (2,I OS/2,759=76%). In his second paragraph under the heading of NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY,Mr. Edgecumbe states that "if constructed,the Property will result in excessive noise,traffic,parking and privacy problems"for his clients.It is unclear how he arrived at this conclusion since his letter offers no supporting evidence. In the same paragraph Mr.Edgecumbe excludes 22 Cayuse Lane from his analysis of the average size of existing homes in the neighborhood,stating that "22 Cayuse Lane is not a single-family residence".I admit I have no first-hand knowledge of that property,but L A County Assessor records list it as a Single Family Residence.From a practical standpoint,22 Cayuse exists,it is part of the neighborhood,it is right across the street from 2I Cayuse,and the proposed construction would result in two residences of very similar size. In the very next paragraph (the first paragraph on page 2)Mr.Edgecumbe states that "The proposed Property appears to permit parking for at least 4 or 5 cars".It is unclear to me how he reaches this conclusion,since the existing 2-car garage will remain and no additional parking area is proposed (the driveway is being widened to address the existing difficult and unsafe downhill tum into the driveway). In the same paragraph Mr.Edgecumbe states that an increase to "4 or 5 cars"would result in "almost doubling the traffic on Cayuse Lalle."Again,Mr.Edgecumbe's arithmetic is faulty. Even if the Van Del'Zalms had 4 or 5 cars,and even if they had drivers in the family for all of them,the result would at most be a doubling of the traffic related to Q I Cayuse Lane only.There are a total of 40 properties on Cayuse Lane and Chaparral Lane;assuming 2 cars per residence, 11-95 Leza Mikhail 10/14/20 I0 Page 2 that's 80 cars;even if the Van Der Zalms were to add two cars,the increase in traffic would be 2.5%. [n his paragraph under the heading VIE PRESERVATION Mr.Edgecumbe states that the project silhouette now in place shows "that my clients'views would be substantially impacted".[ looked at the photos he submitted (all of which were taken from 17 Cayuse,none from 13 Cayuse)and I reached just the opposite conclusion. Finally,under the heading POTENTIAL TRESPASS ON PROVATE EASEMENT,Mr. Edgecumbe states "my clients allege that the Property (2 I Cayuse)does not have any legal right to use of the private easement off Cayuse".Whether or not the Van Der Zalms have the right to use the easement is immaterial to this application since the project can be constructed entirely from Cayuse Lane. Very truly yours, Russell E Barto,AlA cc:Van Der Zalm 11-96 Applicable Code Sections 11-97 17.02.040"View preservation and restoration. The residenls of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes,by the adoption of this seclion.have made a finding that the peace.heallh,safety and welfare of the community will be served by the adoption of this seclion and by the regulations prescribed herein. A. Definitions.When not inconsistent with the context,the words used in the present tense include the future;words in the singular number include the plural;and those in the plural number include the singular.In carrying out the intent of this section,words.phrases and terms shall be deemed to have the following meanings ascribed to them: 1. "City"means the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and its employees and staff and those designated by the city council to act on behalf of the city. 2. "Cily council"means the duly elecled legislalive body of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. 3. "Directo(means Ihe director of the planning,building and code enforcement department of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. 4. "Foliage"means natural growth of trees,shrubs and other planllife . .5. "Lot coverage"means that portion of a lot or building site which is occupied by any building or structure.including trellises;decks over thirty Inches in height (as measured from existing adjacent grade);parking areas;driveways;or impervious surfaces (impervious surfaces less than five feet in width andlor one patio area less than five hundred square feet in area shall be excluded from the lot coverage calculation). 6. "Neighborhood character"means the existing characteristics in terms of the following: a. Scale of surrounding residences; b. Architectural styles and materials;and c. Front,side and rear yard setbacks. 7. "Planning commission"means the planning commission of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes as defined in Chapter 2.20 (Planning Commission)of this Municipal Code. B. "Privacy"means reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation. 9. "Scale"means the lolat square footage and lot coverage of a residence and all ancillary structures. 10. "Setback"means the minimum horizontal distance as prescribed by this Code. between any property line or private easement boundary used for vehicular andlor pedestrian access and the closest point on any building or struclure, below or above ground level,on the property.In cases where there is no structure on a lot,setback shall mean the minimum horizontal distance between the property line or easement boundary line and a line parallel to the property line 11-98 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. or easement boundary line.Please refer to Chapter 17.48 (Lots.Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height)for setback regulations. Shall and May."Shall"is mandatory and "may"is permissive. "Structure"means anything constructed or built,any edifice or building of any kind,or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner,which is located on or on top of the ground on a parcel of land utilized for residential purposes,excluding antennas,skylights,solar panels and similar structures not involving the construction of habitable area. "Styie"means design elements which consist of,but are not limited to: a. Facade treatment; b. Height of structure; c. Open space between structures; d. Roof design; e. The apparent bulk or mass of the structure;and f. The number of stories. View.On the Palos Verdes peninsula,it is quite common to have a near view and a far view because of the nature of many of the hills on the peninsula. Therefore,a "view"which is protected by this section is as follows: a. A "near view"which is defined as a scene located on the peninsuia including, but not limited to,a valley,ravine,equestrian trail,pastoral environment or any natural selting;and/or b. A "far view"which is defined as a scene located off the peninsula including,but not limited to,the ocean,Los Angeles basin,city lights at night,harbor,Vincent Thomas Bridge,shoreline or offshore islands. A "view"which is protected by this section shall not include vacant land that is developable under this Code,distant mountain area not normally visible, nor the sky,either above distant mountain areas or above the height of offshore islands.A view may extend in any horizontal direction (three hundred sixty degrees of horizontal arc)and shall be considered as a single view,even if broken into segments by foliage,structures or other interference. "Viewing area"means that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms,hallways, garages or closets)or that area of a lot (excluding the setback areas)where the owner and city determine the best and most important view exists.In structures, the finished floor elevation of any viewing area must be at or above existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest to said viewing area. The "view restoration commission"means the planning commission of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.. 11-99 B. Regulations. 1. Building Height.Any individual or persons desiring to build a new structure or an addition to an existing structure shall be permitled to build up to sixteen feet in height pursuant to subsection B of this section provided there is no grading,as defined in Section 17.76.040 of this titie,to be perfonned in connection with the proposed construction,and further provided that no height variation is required, and all applicable residential development standards are or will be met.In cases where an existing structure is voluntarily demolished or is demolished as a result of an involuntary event,a height variation application will not be required to exceed sixteen feet in height,provided that the replacement structure will have the same or less square footage and building height as the existing structure and will be reconstructed within the building envelope and footprint of the pre-existing structure.Approval for proposed structures or additions to existing structures exceeding sixteen feet in height,may be sought through application for a height variation permit,which,if granted pursuant to the procedures contained herein, will pennit the individual to build a structure not exceeding twenty-six feet in height,except as provided in subsection (B)(1 )(d)of this section,or such lower height as approved by the city,measured as follows: a. For sloping lots which slope uphill from the street of access or in the same direction as the street of access and for which no building pad exists,the height shall be measured from the preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest point on the lot to be covered by the structure to the ridgeline or the highest point of the structure,as illustrated in Figure 1 below. FIGURE 1 .t ~ I b. It I For sloping lots which slope downhill from the street of access and for which no building pad exists,the height shall be measured from the average elevation of the setback line abutling the street of access to the ridgeline or the highest point of the structure,as illustrated in Figure 2 below. FIGURE 2 11-100 c. For lots with a "building pad"at street level or at a different level than the street or lot configurations not previously discussed.the height shall be measured from the preconstruction (existing)grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure to the ridgeline or highest point of the structure.as illustrated in Figure 3 below.Portions of a structure which extend beyond the "building pad" area of a lot shall not qualify as the highest elevation covered by the structure,for the purposes of determining maximum building height. Structures allowed pursuant to this subsection shall not exceed twenty feet in height,as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade,to the ridgeline or highest point of the structure.Otherwise,a height variation permit shall be required. FIGURE 3 • - X~f d. 2. On sloping lots described in Sections 17 .02.040(B)(1 )(a)and 17.02.040(B)(1)(b)of this chapter,the foundation of the structure shall contain a minimum eight foot step with the slope of the lot,as illustrated in Figure 4 below.However,no portion of the structure shall exceed thirty feet in height,when measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade to the ridge line or highest point of the structure.The thirty foot height shall not exceed a horizontally projected sixteen foot height line (fnom the high point of the uphill step of the structure). 11-101 Setbacks for Sloping Lots.On lots which slope uphill from the street of access and where the height of a structure is in excess of sixteen feet above the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the ground,areas in excess of the sixteen foot height limit shall be set back one foot from the exterior building facade of the first story,most parallel and closest to the front property line,for every foot of height in excess of sixteen feet,as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the ground,as illustrated in Figure 4 below. FIGURE 4 re I -or- - - ---=.;;;-:.;,,;;;--- -3. Foliage Obstruction.No person shall significantly impair a view from a viewing area of a lot by permitting foliage to grow to a height exceeding: a. The height determined by the view restoration commission through issuance of a view restoration permit under Section 17.02.040(C)(2)of this chapter;or b. If no view restoration permit has been issued by the view restoration commission,a height which is the lesser of: I. The ridge line of the primary structure on the property;or ii. Sixteen feet. If foliage on the property already exceeds the provisions of subdivisions (i)and (Ii)of Section 17.02.040{B)(3)of this chapter on the effective date of this section,as approved by the voters on November 7,1989,and significantly impairs a view from a viewing area of a lot,then notwithstanding whether any person has sought or obtained issuance of a view restoration permit,the foliage owner shall not let the foliage exceed the foliage height existing on the effective date of this section (November 17,1989).The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that owners of foliage which violates the provisions of this paragraph on the effective date of this section shall not allow the foliage to increase in height.This paragraph does not "grandfather"or otherwise permit such foliage to continue to black a view. 11-102 c. 4. Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance.The city shall issue no conditional use permit,variance,height variation,building permit or other entitlement to construct a structure,or to add livable area to a structure on a parcel utilized for residential purposes,unless the owner removes that part of the foliage on the lot exceeding sixteen feet in height or the ridge line of the primary structure,whichever is lower,that significantly impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel.The owner of the property is responsibie for maintaining the foliage so that the views remain unimpaired.This requirement shall not apply where removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage exists and there is no method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means ailowed within the development code that does not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property.The initial decision on the amount of foliage removal required or the reasonable degree of privacy to be maintained shall be made by the director,the planning commission or the city council,as appropriate for the entitlement in question.If the permit issuance involves property located within the Miraleste recreation and park district,the findings of Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c)(vi}of this chapter shall apply.A decision by the director on either of these matters may be appealed to the planning commission,and any decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council. 5. Determination of Viewing Area. a. The determination of a viewing area shall be made by balancing the nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from where the view is taken.Once finally determined for a particular application,the viewing area may not be changed for any subsequent application.In the event the city and owner cannot agree on the viewing area,the decision of the city shall control.A property owner may appeal the city's determination of viewing area.In such event,the decision on the viewing area will be made by the body making the final decision on the application.A property owner may preserve his or her right to dispute the decision on the viewing area for a subsequent application,without disputing the decision on a pending application,by filing a statement to that effect and indicating the viewing area the property owner believes to be more appropriate.The statement shall be filed with the city prior to consideration of the pending application by the city. Procedures and Requirements. 1. Preservation of Views Where Structures are Involved. a. Any person proposing to construct a structure above sixteen feet shall submit a height variation permit application to the city.A determination on the application shall be made by the director in accordance with the findings described in Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e}of this chapter.The director shall refer a height variation application directly to the planning commission for consideralion under the same findings,as part of a public hearing,if any of the following is proposed: i. Any portion of a structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height extends closer than twenty-five feet from the front or street- side property line;or ii. 11-103 b. c. d. e. The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (the second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent of the first story footprint area (residence and attached garage); iii. Sixty percent or more of a garage footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (a second story); iv. The portion of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height is being developed as part of a new single-family residence;or v. Based on an initial site visit,the director determines that any portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen feet in height may significantly impair a view as defined in this chapter. The applicant shall take reasonable steps established by the city council to consult with owners of property located within five hundred feet of the applicant's property.The applicant shall obtain and submit with the application the signatures of the persons with whom the applicant consulted.Where a homeowners'association existing in the neighborhood affected has provided written notice to the director of its desire to be notified of height variation applications,the applicant shall mail a letter to the association requesting its position on the application. A copy of this letter and the response of the association,if any,shall be submitted with the application.A fee shall be charged for the application as established by resolution of the city council. The director shall,by written notice,notify property owners within a five- hundred-foot radius of the subject property and the affected homeowners'association,if any,of the application and inform them that any objections to the proposed construction must be submitted to the director within thirty calendar days of the date of the notice. The applicant shall construct on the site at the applicant's expense,as a visual aid,a temporary frame of the proposed structure. A height variation application to build a new structure or an addition to an existing structure,either of which exceeds sixteen feet in height up to the maximum height permitted in subsection (B)(1)of this section,may be granted with or without conditions if the following findings can be made: i. The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the city; ii. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks,major thoroughfares,bike ways,walkways or equestrian trails)which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,as city-designated viewing areas; iii. The proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or a promontory; iv. 11-104 f. g. h. The area of a proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height,as defined in subsection B of this section,when considered exclusive of existing foliage,does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.If the viewing area is located in a structure,the viewing area shall be located in a portion of a structure which was constructed without a height variation permit or variance,or which would not have required a height variation or variance when originally constructed had this section,as approved by the voters on November 7,1989,been in effect at the time the structure was constructed,unless the viewing area located in the portion of the existing structure which required a height variation permit or variance constitutes the primary living area (living room,family room,dining room or kitchen)of the residence; v. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is detemnined not to be significant,as described in subsection (C)(1 )(e)(vi)of this section,the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view; vi. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application.Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by:(a)considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height;and (b)considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height; vii. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements; viii. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character; ix. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. Written notice of the directors or planning commission's decision shall be sent to the applicant,his/her representative and to all parties who responded to the original notice. The decision of the director may be appealed to the planning commission by the applicant or any person who responded in writing to the director prior to the director's decision;provided,the appeal is filed in writing within fifteen calendar days after the date of the directors decision.The appellant shall pay an appeal fee as established by resolution of the city council. 11-105 2. Notice of the pUblic hearing for an initial determination of a height variation application by the planning commission or an appeal to the planning commission andlor city council shall be mailed thirty calendar days prior to the hearing,to property owners within five hundred feet of the applicant's property,as well as any additional property owners previously determined by the city to be affected by the proposal. i. In hearing an appeal of the directo~s decision,the planning commission shall grant the application and cause a permit to be issued,only if it finds that all of the requirements of subsection (C)(1 )(e)of this section have been met. j. A decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council by the applicant or any person who commented orally or in writing to the planning commission;provided,the appeal is filed in writing within fifteen calendar days after the date of the planning commission's decision.The appellant shall pay an appeal fee as established by resolution of the city council.In order to grant a permit, the city council must determine that all of the requirements listed in subsection (C)(1)(e)of this section have been met. Restoration of Views Where Foliage is a Factor. a. Any resident owning a residential structure with a view may file an application with the city for a view restoration permit.The applicant shall file with the application proof that the applicant consulted,or attempted to consult,with the property owner whose foliage is in question.The applicant shall pay a fee for the view restoration permit as established by resolution of the city council. b. The application shall be submitted to the view restoration commission. Written nolice of the time and place for the hearing on the application shall be sent 10 the applicant and the property owner(s)of the foliage involved at least thirty caiendar days prior to the meeting of the commission.Commission members shall inspect the site prior to the public hearing.Only view restoration commission members who make a site inspection may participate in the public hearing. c. In order for a view restoration notice to be issued,the commission must find: i. The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on hislher part to resolve conmcts; ii. Foliage exceeding sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,whichever is lower,significantly impairs a view from the applicant's viewing area,whether such foliage is located totally on one property,or when combined with foliage located on more than one property; iii. The foliage to be removed is located on property,any part of which is less than one thousand feel from the applicant's property line(s); iv. 11-106 d. e. f. The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist,as view impairing vegetation,when the lot from which the view is taken was created; v. Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located; vi. For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste recreation and park district,the commission shall also find the removal or trimming of the foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of this section,as set forth in the ordinance approved by the voters on November 7,1989, and preserving the historical developments of the Miraleste recreation and park district area with a large number of trees. Should the commission make findings requiring issuance of a view restoration penmit,the director shall send a notice to the property owner to trim,cull,lace or othelWise cause the foliage to be reduced to sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,whichever is lower,or such limit above that height which will restore the view.The property owner will have ninety calendar days to have the foliage removed.The applicant shall be responsible for the expense of the foliage removal and/or replacement ordered pursuant to this subsection only to the extent of the lowest bid amount provided by contractors licensed to do such work in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and selected by the applicant.After the initial trimming,culling,lacing or removal of the foliage,the owner,at the owner's expense,shall be responsible for maintaining the foliage so that the view restoration required by the view restoration permit is maintained. To the extent legally permissible,trees or foliage on property owned by any governmental entity,except the city and the Miraleste recreation and park district,shall be subject to view restoration control,as per the provisions of this section;except,that the foliage shall be trimmed or removed thirty calendar days following issuance of the notice.Trees and/or foliage located on city property,or in the public right-of-way,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions).shall be subject to view restoration control,as per the provisions of this section,pursuant to the city tree review permit procedure contained in Section 17.76.100 (City tree review permit.) The view restoration commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions on the approval of a view restoration permit as may be found to be appropriate or necessary to protect the public health,safety or welfare or the foliage owner's reasonable enjoyment of his or her property.Such conditions or restrictions may include,but are not limited to:(1)requiring the complete removal of the subject foliage when the commission finds that the trimming,culling,lacing or reducing of that foliage to sixteen feet or the ridge line is likely to kill the foliage, threaten the public health,safety and welfare,or will destroy the aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be pruned or reduced in height, provided that the property owner consents to the removal;and (2) requiring replacement of such foliage when the commission finds that removal without replacement will cause a significant adverse impact on: (a)the public health,safety and welfare,(b)the privacy of the property owner,(c)shade provided to the d"Yelling or the property,(d)the energy-efficiency of the dwelling,(e)the health or viability of the remaining landscaping,or (I)the integrity of the landscape plan, provided that the property owner consents to the replacement. 11-107 g. The applicant.the owner of the property where the foliage is located.or any other interested person may appeal the decision of the view restoration commission to the city council by filing with the city clerk a written notice of appeal,including the grounds for the appeal,and any specific aclion being requested by the appellant,together with the appeal fee established by resolution of the city council.within fifteen calendar days after the view restoration commission adopts the resolution setting forth its decision.The decision of the view restoration commission is final if no appeal is filed within fifteen calendar days.If such an appeal is timely and properly filed,a copy of the findings of the view restoration commission and all materials on file with the director shall be transmitted to the city council,which shall be part of the appeal hearing record,together with the notice of appeal and any other written materials submitted by interested parties.Additional written materials shall be submitted to the city clerk at least seven calendar days prior to the date that the appeal will be heard by the city council. Upon receiving the notice of appeal,the city clerk shall schedule the matter for review at a forthcoming meeting of the city council.At the city council meeting,oral testimony shall be limited to five minutes in length for each of the parties whose properties are affected by the decision and two minutes per person for other individuals.Oral testimony shall be limited to the issues raised in the written appeal.At the conclusion of the oral presentation,the city council may do one of the following: I. Affirm the decision of the view restoration commission and approve the application upon finding that all applicable findings have been correctly made and all provisions of subsection (C)(2)of this section are complied with; ii. Approve the application but impose additional or different conditions as the city council deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of subsection (C)(2)of this section; iii. Disapprove the application upon finding that all applicable findings cannot be made or all provisions of subsection (C)(2) of this seclion have not been complied with;or iv. Refer the matter back to the view restoration commission to conduct further proceedings.The remanded proceedings may include the presentation of significant new evidence which was raised in conjunction with the appeal.The city council shall state the ground(s)for the remand and shall give instruclions to the view restoration commission concerning any error found by the city council in the commission's prior determination. h. If,after ninety calendar days,the foliage has not been removed or trimmed in accordance with the requirements of a view restoration or view preservation permit,the city of Rancho Palos Verdes will authorize a bonded tree service to trim,cull,lace or remove the identified foliage at the owne~s expense.In the event that the city is required to perform the work,the foliage owner will be billed for all city expenses incurred in enforcing the view restoration or preservation permit (including reasonable attorney's fees).If the property owner does not pay the city for the amount set forth on the invoice,the city may record a lien or assessment against the foliage owne~s property,pursuant to Chapter 8.24 of this Code. 11-108 (Ord.481 §10,2008;Ord.442 §1,2006;Ord.405 §§7-9,2004;Ord.400U §§7-9,2004;Ord.389 §5,2003;Ord.386 § 3,2003;Ord.355 §8,2000;Ord.340 §8 (part),1998;Ord.329U §1,1997;Ord.319 §8,1997:Ord.298 §1,1994;Ord. 262 §§2,3,1991;Proposition M,passed November 7,1989:Ord.194 §5 (pari),1985;Ord.114 §1,1979:Ord.90 §1, 1977,'Ord.78 (part),1975) (Ord.No.510,§9,6-29-10) 17,76.040 -Grading permit. A. Purpose.The city finds and declares that it is necessary to adopt this section to promote the pUblic health,safety and general welfare.Where this section is in conflict with other city ordinances,the stricter shalt apply.Specifically,this section provides for: 1. Permitting reasonable development of land and minimizing fire hazards,ensuring the maximum retention of groundcover to aid in protection against flooding,erosion,earth movement,siltation and other similar hazards; 2. Ensuring the maximum preservation of the natural scenic character of the area consistent with reasonabte economic use of such property; 3. Ensuring that the development of each parcel of land,as well as watercourses,streets .and other public lands and places,occurs in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands so as to minimize problems of flooding,drainage,erosion,earth movement and similar hazards,and to maintain the visual continuity of hill and valley without unsightly continuous benching of buildable sites;and 4. Ensuring that each project complies with all goals and policies of the general plan,any specific plan and any amendments. B. Grading Allowed.The foltowing grading may be allowed with a minor grading permit,a major grading permit or a remedial grading permit.Each parcel of land involved requires separate approval: 1. A minor grading permit shall be used for those projects which meet all of the following criteria: a. An excavation,fill or combination thereof,in excess of twenty cubic yards,but less than fifty cubic yards,in any two-year period,on a slope of less than thirty- five percent,or b. An excavation three feet or more,but less than five feet,below natural grade or a fill three feet or more,but less than five feet,above natural grade on a slope of less than thirty-five percent; 2. A major grading permit shall be used for those projects which result in any of the following: a. An excavation,fill or combination thereof,in excess of fifty cubic yards in any two-year period, b. An excavation five feet or more betow natural grade or a fill five feet or more above natural grade, c. 11-109 C. D. Notwithstanding exemptions (C)(1)and (C)(2)of this section,any excavation or fill which encroaches on or alters a natural drainage channel or watercourse,and d. Unless otherwise exempted by subsection C of this section,an excavation or fill on an extreme slope (thirty-five percent or more); 3. A remedial grading penmit shall be used for excavations,fill or any redistribution of earth materiais for the purpose of enhancing soil stability and reducing geotechnical hazards due to naturai land movement or the presence of natural hazards. Grading Exempt.The following grading shall be exempt from this section: 1. An excavation,fill or combination thereof,less than twenty cubic yards in any two-year period; 2. An excavation less than three feet below natural grade,or a fill less than three feet above natural grade; 3. Grading pursuant to a permit for excavation in public streets; 4. Grading in connection with a public improvement or other public works project for which inspection is provided by the city or another public agency,as approved by the city .engineer; 5. Grading in private easements by a public utility,cable franchisee or a mutual water company; 6. An excavation or fill on private property made by an individual to repair or replace a sewer line,water line or other underground utility line; 7. An excavation less than ten feet below existing grade for the foundation or footings of a structure or a swimming pool located on a slope less than thirty-five percent and not involving a caisson foundation.Caisson foundations or any excavation for a footing or foundation ten feet or more below existing grade shall require the approval of a minor grading permit.This exemption shall not affect the applicability of this section to,nor the requirement of a grading approval for,any fill made with the material from such excavation;and B. Tilting of the soil for agricultural and horticultural purposes;and discing the soil for fire hazard abatement purposes. For purposes of this section,grading shall be caiculated in cubic yards and shall represent the total earth movement on a lot or parcel.The total earth movement shall be the total amount of excavation plus the totai amount of fill,regardless of whether there is a net balance of cut and fili quantities on a site. Application. 1. To obtain the approval required by this section,an applicant shall file a completed minor grading,major grading or remedial grading application on a form furnished by the city.The application shall be signed by the owner of the property where the work is to be perfonmed,or by his duly authorized agent.An agent's authority must be shown in writing. The director may require additional information as necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.. 2. 11-110 3. 4. 5. Unless waived by the director,the application shall be accompanied by scaled plans or drawings,prepared and signed,as appropriate,by a registered civil engineer,architect or landscape architect which show the following: a. A plot plan identifying property lines,easements,existing and proposed structures,accurate contours of existing topographic conditions and finished contours of all proposed grading.One-foot contour intervals are required.Five- foot contour intervals may be accepted if deemed appropriate by the director; b. The location of any existing structure within fifteen feet of the proposed grading, whether or not that structure is located on the lot to be graded; c. Typical and highesUgreatest point cross-sections of retaining walls,cut slopes and fill slopes; d. Any additional plans,drawings or calculations deemed necessary by the director to demonstrate that the proposed grading complies with the provisions of the development code; e. The plot plan shall establish the elevation of some pemnanent benchmark or other reference point on or adjacent to the subject property.The reference point shall not be altered in elevation or location.Any grading depths and heights of future structures on this property shall be referenced to this point; .f. The plans shall label the areas of cut and fill with different markings for each,and each area labeled shall designate the amount of cut or fill in cubic yards. g. Applications involving vacant property shall indicate the average percent slope of each parcel and shall demonstrate the method used in calculating the average percent slope.Applications involving developed property shall Indicate slope averaging calculations using the fomnulas and methods described in the diagrams contained in Exhibit "76-A"of this section tilled:"Slope Calculation"and "Average Cross Slope Calculation,"at various locations on the subject bUilding site,as determined by the director. Applications for a remedial grading pemnit shall be accompanied by geological and/or soils reports which justify the need for the remedial grading and indicate that the grading will not aggravate the existing soils and/or geologic conditions.Unless waived by the director, applications for a minor grading or grading pemnit shall be accompanied by geological and/or soils reports which indicate that the grading will not aggravate the existing soils and/or geologic condition. Applications Referred to Planning Commission.When a major grading application proposes earth movement involving one thousand or more cubic yards of earth or when a remedial grading application proposes earth movement involving five thousand or more cubic yards of earth,the application shall be referred to the planning commission for consideration under the criteria set forth in this section.However,grading for construction of a basement,cellar or other structure located below grade and not visible from any surrounding public right-of-way,shall not be referred to the planning commission regardless of the total cubic yards of earth movement;provided,that no exportation of fill off of the grading site resulls from the grading.An application referred to the planning commission shall be noticed to a newspaper of general circulation and given to owners of property within five hundred feet of the project,all persons requesting notice,to any affected homeowner associations and the applicant pursuant to Section 17.80.090 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this tille. Fees. 11-111 E. a. Each application shall be accompanied by a fee,as established by resolution of the city council. b. Any revision to an approved application must be approved by the review body of the city which gave final approval to the original application and a fee shall be paid,as eslablished by resolution of the city council. c. In addition to the application fees,the applicant shall pay building permit and plan check fees as specified by Chapter 3 of the Unifonn Building Code. 6. Deposits.If excavated material in excess of twenty cubic yards is to be deposited off the grading site,the applicant shall deposit with the city a deposit fee established by resolution of the city council in the fonn of cash,check or money order as securily for the proper removal of the excavated material before being granled a minor grading,grading or remedial grading permit allowing such excavation,by the city's building official.Such excavaled material shall be disposed of in the manner sel forth and at the localion indicated on the city's "Notice to Contractors and Property Owners-Requiremenls for Removal of Excavated Malerials."Upon submission to the building official of dump receipts which substantiate the proper removal of all excavated malerial from the building site as shown on the notice,the deposit shall be returned.Failure to present valid receipts to the city within one hundred eighty days of final approval,cancellation or expiration of the minor grading,grading or remedial grading permit shall resull in forfeiture of the security deposit.Forfeited deposits shall be placed in the general fund of the cily and used .to cover the cost of removing illegally dumped material. 7. Final Approval.Upon approval of the application by the director or planning commission, the applicant must still conform to all conditions imposed by Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code,including all required fees,and approval by the director is not final until approval has been granted by the city engineer. Criteria for Evaluation of Minor Grading and Major Grading Applications.A minor grading or major grading application shall be assessed in light of the following criteria: 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions)of this title; 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does nol significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with,nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties.In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence,this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure,as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(B)of this title,is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing)grade; 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural; 4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic fealures and appearances by means of land sculpluring so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography; 5. For new single-family residences,the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character,as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-family Residential Districts); 6. 11-112 7, 8, g, In new residential tracts,the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas; 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 grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation; The grading conforms to the following standards: a, Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding thirty-five percent shall be allowed on recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25,1975 or if within Eastview,existin9 as of January 5,1983,which are not currently zoned open space/hazard,if the director or planning commission finds that such grading,as conditioned,will not threaten the public health,safety and welfare. b. No finished slopes 9reater than thirty-five percent shall be created,except at the point of vehicular access adjacent to driveways,as per subsection (E)(9)(f)of this section. c. Except for the excavation of a basement or cellar,a fill or cut shall not exceed a depth of five feet at any point except where the director or the planning commission determines that unusual topography,soil conditions,previous grading or other circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary. d. No fill or cut shall be permilted on a slope exceeding fifty percent gradient,unless the grading is on a sixty-seven percent slope,allowed pursuant to subsection (E)(9)(f)of this section. e. Retaining Walls. I. Unless located within the required front or street side setback,one upslope retaining wall not to exceed eight feet in height may be used. Retaining walls located in the required front or streetside setback shall not exceed three and one-half feet in height; ii. One downslope retaining wall not to exceed three and one-half feet in height may be used; iii. On lots sloping with the street and other configurations not discussed above,one retaining wall not to exceed three and one-half feet may be used on each side of the lot; iv. Retaining walls may be allowed up to five feet in height,adjacent to driveways,only if required for access or slope stabilization.There shall be no more than one upslope or one downslope retaining wall adjacent to driveways; v. Retaining walls which are an integral part of a structure may exceed eight feet,within the building footprint; f. Driveways. I. 11-113 F. Driveways which exceed twenty percent slope shall not be permitted except that one length,not at the point of access,of not more than ten linear feet may have a slope of up to twenty-two percent; ii. Slopes not greater than sixty-seven percent may be permitted adjacent to driveways; 10. The director may grant a grading permit for development in excess of that permissible under subsection (E)(9)of this section upon finding that: a. The criteria of subsections (E)(1)through (E)(8)of this section are satisfied; b. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of this section; c. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9)of this section will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity;and d. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9)of this section will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property; e. Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property.Notice of denial shall be given to only the applicant.Any interested person may appeal the directors decision to the planning commission and the planning commission decision to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. Criteria for Evaluation of Remedial Grading Applications.A remedial grading application shall be assessed in light of the following criteria: 1. The maximum vertical height of cut or fill should not exceed that which is necessary to enhance soil stability and reduce geotechnical hazards due to natural land movement or the presence of natural hazards,except that fissures of any depth may be filled to the level of the adjacent ground surface.Such grading should be designed to reduce the local topographic relief and in no case should fill be placed on a slope steeper than thirty-five percent such that it might cause a soil slip or mud-flow. 2. Where remedial grading on a residential lot involves importation of fill material from a source outside of the lot,no more than that which is necessary to enhance soil stability and reduce geotechnical hazards due to natural land movement or the presence of natural hazards should be permitted. 3. Remedial grading along private roads should be restricted to maintaining the roads in a safe and usable condition and to improving surface drainage so that runoff water does not flow into closed depressions or fissures.In areas adjacent to scarps,the crests of the scarps should be periodically lowered so as to reduce the volume of imported fill needed to maintain the proper road grade on the down-thrown sides of the scarps.In no event shall remedial grading bring the road surface higher than the original grade.Such remedial grading should be the responsibility of the appropriate homeowners association or the adjacent property owners. 4. Stockpiling will be allowed for road repair and remedial grading;providing,the stockpiles in any given area do not exceed two hundred cubic yards,are not in yard areas visible from any right-of-way and are not stockpiled for more than six months. 5. 11-114 G. Remedial grading shall be designed to improve surface drainage and in no case cause ponding or surface runoff so as to increase the likelihood of surface water infiltration. 6. The nature of the grading shall minimize disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours should remain reasonably natural. 7. The grading shall take 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. 8. The grading shall avoid or minimize disturbance to coastal sage scrub habitat.If disturbances or impacts to coastal sage scrub are unavoidable,all impacts shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the city. 9. Where appropriate,the grading shall include 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. 10. Where appropriate,the grading should utilize street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. 11. The grading should not cause excessive and unnecessary scarring of the natural .landscape through removal of vegetation. Conditions Upon Issuance.In granting any approval under this chapter,the director or the planning commission may impose such conditions as may be reasonably necessary to prevent danger to public or private property,to prevent conduct likely to create a nuisance or to preserve the intent of any goal or policy of the general plan.No person shall violate any conditions imposed by the director or planning commission.Such conditions may include, but shall not be limited to: 1. Limitations on the days and hours of operation in which work may be performed; 2. Designation of routes and means of access to the site; 3. Designation of the place and manner of disposal of excavated materials and of the acquisition of fill; 4. Requirements as to the mitigation of dust and dirt,the prevention of noise and other results offensive or injurious to the neighborhood,the general public or any portion thereof,including due consideration,care and respect for the property rights,convenience and reasonable desires and needs of neighbors; 5. Designation of maximum or minimum slopes; 6. Regulations as to the use of public streets and places; 7. Landscaping,in addition to the minimum required by Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code; 8. The submittal of a performance bond or trust deposit to ensure that grading,landscaping or other conditions imposed under this section are performed;and 9. For any remedial grading permit,the recordation of a covenant against the property subject to any significant remedial grading,which is defined as excavation,fill or any 11-115 combination thereof,which involves the redistribution of earth materials for the purpose of reestablishing the stability and continuity of such area,and which involves:(1)excavation, fill or any combination thereof in excess of one thousand cubic yards within any two~year period,or (2)excavation ten feet or more below preconstruction grade or fill ten feet or more above preconstruction grade.The covenant shall document the nature and scope of the significant remedial grading completed to enhance soil stability and reduce geotechnical hazards due to land movement or the presence of natural hazards. H. Appeal.Any interested person may appeal any decision of the director to the planning commission and any decision of the planning commission to the city councii pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. J. Prohibited Deposits of Earth,Rock or Excavated Material.No person shall dump,move or place any earth,sand,gravel,rock,stone or other excavated material or debris so as to cause the same to be deposited upon or to roll,blow,flow or wash upon or over any public place or right-of-way or upon or over the premises of another,without the express written consent of the owner of such premises so affected.No person shall,when hauling any earth,sand,gravel,rock,stone or other excavated material or debris over any public street,alley or other public place,allow such material to blow or spill over and upon such street,alley or place,or adjacent private property.If there is a violation of this subsection whereby any earth,sand,gravel,rock,stone or other excavated material is caused to be deposited upon or to roll,flow or wash upon any public place or private property,the person responsible shall cause the same to be removed from such public place or private property within thirty-six hours,or immediately after notification by the city,if a hazardous condition is caused.In the event it is not so removed,the director of public works shall cause such removal and the cost of such removal shall be paid to the city by the person who failed to so removeihe material. (Ord.416 §6,2005;Ord.405 §10,2004,'Ord.400U §10,2004;Ord.340 §8 (patt),1998;amended during 11-97 supplement;Ord.320 §7 (part),1997:Ord.194 §12 (part),1985,'Ord.150 §§3-5,1982;Ord.89 §1 (part),1977;Ord.87 §1,1977;Ord.86 §1,1977;Ord.78 (parl),1975) 11-116 P.C.Minutes (March 8,20111 11-117 he General Plan is becoming a large She felt that much of what not needed in the General Sunshine stated she was s document as opposed to being cut down is being added will not be relevant in ten years and there Plan. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Appeal of Director's approval for an Extreme Slope Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON2009·00108):21 Cayuse Lane Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report,briefly explaining the scope of the project and the two main points of the appeal.She noted that the appeal was based on the Director's decision that the property is a sloping lot as opposed to a pad lot,which allows for a taller height for the residence and on the foliage analysis that was conducted.She stated that staff believes the findings and criterion to warrant the approval of the Site Plan Review and Extreme Slope Permit that were made with the Director's decision are approvable and as a result the appeal should be overturned and the Director's decision upheld. Commissioner Knight noted that the appeal raises the issue of foliage,but asked staff if that issue has since been resolved. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the tree in question has been removed from the applicant's property,and the foliage issue is no longer applicable. Commissioner Knight asked if the remaining issue is whether this is a pad or a slope lot. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that was correct. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify why this lot is not considered a pad lot. Associate Planner Mikhail explained the definition of a pad lot and a slope lot,and noted that on this property there are two separate pad elevations and in between these two pads there is a hill which has more than a five percent slope on which the existing home is constructed.Therefore,it is not considered a contiguous level pad as defined in the Code,and the existing residence is currently constructed as a hillside home. Commissioner Lewis noted that in order to uphold the Director's decision the Planning Commission must make certain findings.He asked if the Commission is allowed to consider the economic impact the proposed addition may have to the appellant's home in making their decision. Director Rojas answered that economic impact is not a review criteria. Planning Commission MInutes March 8,2011 Page 2 11-118 Commissioner Leon asked,with respect to building on a sloping lot,is there any requirement that the basic house has to follow the hillside. Director Rojas stated that there is no requirement that the house outline follow topography as the code defines an allowable building envelQpe from the highest point on the hillside at 16 feet down the slope to 30 feet. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Steve Wohm (appellant's attorney)explained that not only is neighborhood compatibility an issue,but that it is their contention that there is clear physical evidence that there is a building pad and this should be considered a pad lot.Further,because of this clear evidence of a building pad,the proposed addition should have been considered through a height variation application with the appropriate review.He felt the application was an end-run around the more stringent requirements of the height variation.He stated that there are numerous numerical miscalculations,noting that he felt lot coverage is inaccurately stated,that certain portions of the decks that have been added but not taken into consideration when totaling up the additional square footage,and certain other areas where calculations have been made where square footage has been extracted from improper categories.He summarized that it is their contention that a height variation permit,with all of the required findings,must be submitted and approved for this project.Regarding the foliage,he agreed that a portion of the foliage has been removed however he did not think that issue has been entirely solved.In addition to the foliage he noted the bulk and mass of the proposed addition will significantly reduce the view from at least two different rooms,the kitchen area and living room,in his client's home. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr.Wohm if the kitchen area and living room are contiguous rooms and if the windows are right next to each other. Mr.Wohm answered that at 17 Cayuse the rooms are contiguous,separated by a wall. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr.Wohm what additional information would be brought before the Commission if the Commission were to opt to continue the public hearing. Mr.Wohm explained that the critical determination is whether or not the unilateral determination that this is a sloping lot and not a pad lot is the correct determination. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr.Wohm if he wanted the additional thirty days to continue to argue whether his interpretation of the Ordinance is correct,or did he want the extra thirty days to bring the Commission additional evidence in terms of inaccuracies. Mr.Wohm answered that the best use of the time would be to identify the numerical contentions they have made.He noted that he felt the impact to his clients is so significant that it justifies some additional time in order for them to complete the analysis and increase the strength of the argument that a height variation permit is required. Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 3 11-119 Chairman Tomblin asked if the issues in terms of neighborhood compatibility and the findings were being driven by the view impacts to the appellants. Mr.Wohm felt that was true,adding that it is the contention of the appellants that this is a three story residence in a primarily single story neighborhood,which is not compatible.He stated that common sense and logic dictates that a building of that bulk and size is not compatible with the area,and he promotes that argument. Chairman Tomblin asked Mr.Wohm which room in the house would have the greatest view impact from this proposed addition. Mr.Wohm answered that the greatest view impact would be from the kitchen area and the living room area. Chairman Tomblin asked what view feature would be blocked by the proposed addition. Mr.Wohm explained that a portion of the addition would block most of the view of the ocean as well as a portion of the mountain view past LAX. Sunshine objected to the ability of the Director to make a unilateral decision on cases such as this where there is some contention,rather than bringing the case to the Planning Commission where this body can make the decision. Russ Barto stated he is the architect representing the applicants.He explained that his first step in dealing with the project was to approach staff for their determination as to what could be done on this lot,based on their interpretation of what this lot was.Even before he started any design work,staff determined this was a sloping lot and anything he designed would be required to fit in the 16/30 height envelope.He felt that if an architect or applicant can't rely on staffs basic interpretation on something such as this, it makes every applicant's position very tenuous. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr.Barto if he had any comments on the appellants claim that the lot coverage and square footage calculations are inaccurate. Mr.Barto stated he has gone over all of the calculations with staff repeatedly and in great detail,and he is comfortable in the numbers as they are presented. Mark Vidzalm (applicant)explained he has worked for many years with his architect in reaching a design he felt was within the city codes.He was concerned that an issue regarding pad lot versus slope lot would put his entire project,with all of the time and money invested,in jeopardy. Steve Wohm (in rebuttal)acknowledged the applicant has put in a lot of time on this project,however the city codes and processes are in place for a reason.He noted that there have been numerous revisions to the project over time and therefore it was never Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 4 11-120 an easy process.He felt the issue of the very broad discretion of the Director has been properly raised.He stated that when something as substantial as this is happening, even though the staff has obviously done a very extensive job on this matter,it should be put before the Planning Commission for a review because that is why there is a Planning Commission. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon asked staff to review the neighborhood compatibility analysis performed in terms of coming up with the appropriateness of the bulk and mass and square footage. Associate Planner Mikhail explained staffs analysis,noting that staff determined the home would be within the size range when compared with the twenty closest homes.In addition,staff felt the project is heavily articulated with multiple roof lines and multiple facades.The house has a single story fal(ade from the front and has quite large setbacks from the adjacent properties,including the rear property line.The house is set down approximately thirty feet from the street and can barely be seen from the street. She noted the existing residence is a two-story home and there are other multi-story homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Leon asked staff to address the comment that the proposed residence is a three-story home. Associate Planner Mikhail explained there is a lower level to the property,a mid level, and an upper level,which is common for homes developed on hillside properties. Commissioner Knight asked if there were other three-story homes in the neighborhood. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff did not look to see if there were any other three-story homes in the neighborhood for the purpose of defining what is or isn't a hillside lot due to the fact that the property owner is permitted to construct a home within the permitted hillside lot building envelope. Commissioner Knight stated that he was initially confused about the definition of a pad lot versus a sloping lot,however after reading the staff report and listening to testimony he felt confident that staff has correctly categorized this lot as a sloping lot which puts the building in the sixteen I thirty foot building envelope,which would allow this residence as proposed,by right.He noted that this new residence does create a view impact to the neighboring property,however he was not convinced that it was a significant view impact. Commissioner Knight moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision,thereby conditionally approving the project,seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2011 Page 5 11-121 Commissioner Lewis stated he was able to make all of the findings,but noted he is sympathetic to the appellant as he felt there most likely will be an economic impact caused by the construction of this residence.However,he noted this cannot be considered under the city's code.Because he was able to make the necessary findings,he stated he would vote in favor of the motion. Commissioner Leon stated that to uphold the appeal,the Planning Commission must find that this residence is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,and he did not feel the Commission was given the data usually provided to make a determination whether this house is compatible with the neighborhood. Director Rojas noted the neighborhood compatibility analysis that was in the Director's report,which was included in the Commission's staff report. Commissioner Lewis stated that this home is similar to others the Commission has approved in regards to the fact that the house is tucked onto the lot and not visible from the street. Chairman Tomblin also sympathized with the appellant,however he agreed with Commissioners Knight and Lewis in that he can make the required findings to approve the house.In reference to the view,he acknowledged there will be an impact to the appellant's view but he did not think it would be a significant impact.He also agreed with the Director's decision that this is a sloping lot rather than a pad lot.With that,he also was able to uphold the Director's decision. The motion to deny the appeal and thereby uphold the Director's decision and conditionally approve the project as recommended by staff,thereby adopting PC Resolution 2011-12 was approved,(5-0-1)with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining. No.ZON2010- Ion of this item and then Therefore,Commissioner ff report,giving a brief background of the a .revision.She referred to finding No.6, Iginal can 1 approval to allow the requested to allow additional 1 area under two of the trellises. applicant requested staff coup 's particular request with he Trader Joe's project.She noted th . a revised with the late correspondence where staff has a d a condition of uires the applicant to provide the necessary required parking spaces al of the building permit for the Admiral Risty improvement and prior to Chairman To .stated that he will only be staying fo he would recuse If from the remainder of the Gerstner stepped in as Chairman. Associate Planner Mikhail presente approval of the Conditional Use P explaining staff would modify trellises to have a solid ro She also explained th the six-month revie Resolution inc! approval th prior to t Planning Commission Minutes March 8.2011 Page 6 11-122