RPVCCA_SR_2011_06_07_J_Site_Plan_Review_Time_Extension_2700.5_San_Ramon_DriveMEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Staff Coordinator:
RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNI1Y6av~MENT DIRECTOR
JUNE 7,2011 V V'.
TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
GRADING PERMIT (CASE NO.ZON2009-00396);MR.THOMPSON,
2700%SAN RAMON DRIVE.
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER G9--
So Kim,Assistant Planner~
Grant a one-time,one-year extension of the approval for Case No.ZON2009-00396 (Site Plan
Review and Grading Permit)for the property located at 2700~San Ramon Drive,thereby setting
the final expiration date as May 18,2012,with all conditions of approval remaining in full force and
effect.
BACKGROUND
On May 18,2011,the City Council denied an appeal filed by an existing resident of a Planning
Commission decision and thereby conditionally approved a Site Plan Review and Grading Permit
application (Case No.ZON2009-00396)to allow the construction of a new two-story,3,463ft2
residence with 1,500yd3 of related grading on a vacant lot located at 2700~San Ramon Drive.
Pursuant to RPVMC §17 .86.070(C),the City Council's approval is valid for one-year or until May 18,
2011,and the property owner is allowed until that date to submit plans to the Building and Safety
Division to begin the plan check process.
On May 11,2011,Mr.Maloney,the architect for the project,submitted a request for a one-time,one-
year extension to the approval of Case No.ZON2009-00396.Pursuant to the Development Code,
the extension request must be acted upon by the body that issued the final approval of the project
applications.Thus,this extension request is being presented to the City Council for consideration.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to RPVMC §17.86.070(C),"Upon a showing of substantial hardship,delays beyond the
control of the applicant or other good cause,the City Council may extend this period one time for up
to one additional year."Since the time extension request was filed,this project is eligible for
consideration of a time extension.
According to the attached letter submitted by Mr.Maloney (architect),the County of Los Angeles
Fire Department recently adopted a new review procedure in January,subjecting the property owner
J -1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Staff Coordinator:
RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNI1Y6av~MENT DIRECTOR
JUNE 7,2011 V V'.
TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
GRADING PERMIT (CASE NO.ZON2009-00396);MR.THOMPSON,
2700%SAN RAMON DRIVE.
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER G9--
So Kim,Assistant Planner~
Grant a one-time,one-year extension of the approval for Case No.ZON2009-00396 (Site Plan
Review and Grading Permit)for the property located at 2700~San Ramon Drive,thereby setting
the final expiration date as May 18,2012,with all conditions of approval remaining in full force and
effect.
BACKGROUND
On May 18,2011,the City Council denied an appeal filed by an existing resident of a Planning
Commission decision and thereby conditionally approved a Site Plan Review and Grading Permit
application (Case No.ZON2009-00396)to allow the construction of a new two-story,3,463ft2
residence with 1,500yd3 of related grading on a vacant lot located at 2700~San Ramon Drive.
Pursuant to RPVMC §17 .86.070(C),the City Council's approval is valid for one-year or until May 18,
2011,and the property owner is allowed until that date to submit plans to the Building and Safety
Division to begin the plan check process.
On May 11,2011,Mr.Maloney,the architect for the project,submitted a request for a one-time,one-
year extension to the approval of Case No.ZON2009-00396.Pursuant to the Development Code,
the extension request must be acted upon by the body that issued the final approval of the project
applications.Thus,this extension request is being presented to the City Council for consideration.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to RPVMC §17.86.070(C),"Upon a showing of substantial hardship,delays beyond the
control of the applicant or other good cause,the City Council may extend this period one time for up
to one additional year."Since the time extension request was filed,this project is eligible for
consideration of a time extension.
According to the attached letter submitted by Mr.Maloney (architect),the County of Los Angeles
Fire Department recently adopted a new review procedure in January,subjecting the property owner
to additional reviews without any assurances that plans will be approved prior to the City Council's
expiration date of May 18,2011.Staff contacted the County of Los Angeles Fire Department and
confirmed Mr.Maloney's statement that the applicant's pending project is subject to a new review
procedure by the Fire Department.Given the situation,Staff believes that the delay is beyond the
control of the applicant and therefore recommends granting a one-time,one-year extension to
provide sufficient time for the property owner to submit plans to the Building and Safety Division to
initiate the plan check process.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion,Staff recommends that the City Council grant a one-time,one-
year extension of Case No.ZON2009-00396 to May 18,2012,with all conditions of approval
remaining in full force and effect.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation,the following alternatives are available for consideration by
the City Council:
1.Deny the time extension request for Case No.ZON2009-00396,which shall render it null and
void after May 18,2011.However,the applicant may still request administrative re-issuance of
the expired project,pursuant to RPVMC §17.86.070(D).
2.Approve the time extension for a period of less than one year.
ATTACHMENTS
•Time extension request (received May 9,2011)
•C.C.Resolution 2010-37
J -2
to additional reviews without any assurances that plans will be approved prior to the City Council's
expiration date of May 18,2011.Staff contacted the County of Los Angeles Fire Department and
confirmed Mr.Maloney's statement that the applicant's pending project is subject to a new review
procedure by the Fire Department.Given the situation,Staff believes that the delay is beyond the
control of the applicant and therefore recommends granting a one-time,one-year extension to
provide sufficient time for the property owner to submit plans to the Building and Safety Division to
initiate the plan check process.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion,Staff recommends that the City Council grant a one-time,one-
year extension of Case No.ZON2009-00396 to May 18,2012,with all conditions of approval
remaining in full force and effect.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation,the following alternatives are available for consideration by
the City Council:
1.Deny the time extension request for Case No.ZON2009-00396,which shall render it null and
void after May 18,2011.However,the applicant may still request administrative re-issuance of
the expired project,pursuant to RPVMC §17.86.070(D).
2.Approve the time extension for a period of less than one year.
ATTACHMENTS
•Time extension request (received May 9,2011)
•C.C.Resolution 2010-37
J a H N
ARC H
May 6,2011
MALONEY
I TEe T
RECEIVED
MAY 092011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Att:So Kim,Planning Department
Re:plan submittal for new residence at 27001/2 San Ramon Drive
I am the architect,acting for the owners,Dr.and Mrs.Harold Thompson,writing on the need for
an extension of time to submit our plans the above project for plan check.Although we have
completed the structural engineering and architectural drawings and were anticipating making a
timely submittal before the current May 18 deadline,an agency outside of our control has delayed
in providing one required part of the package.
Upon completion of the detailed final drawings and consultants reports and calculations in
November,I was advised by someone in the building division that we would need to have a new
site plan (showing the additions of the RPV planning review and appeal process notes)taken back
through the approval process at the LA County Fire Department.We took our plans there are were
given more notes to add and were also subjected to another review.That process has been
ongoing,and was further complicated by a new review procedure set up by the County in January.
This week we were informed that instead of our plans being ready,they had nearly established
their new procedures,and we would be notified of them at a future time.We were given no concrete
assurances of anything being ready before the current deadline for submittal,and so we must
petition for an extension of time to allow us to bring the updated and complete set of working
draWings to your office as soon as the County has certified them as per your request.
Attached is a check for the $323 extension fee.
Submitted,
John Maloney
Licensed California Architect C 18424
3318 SHERBOURNE DRIVE CULVER CITY,CA 90232-7438 johnmaloney3@mac.com c (310)562 0362 (310)204-4749
J -3
J a H N
ARC H
May 6,2011
MALONEY
I TEe T
RECEIVED
MAY 092011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Att:So Kim,Planning Department
Re:plan submittal for new residence at 27001/2 San Ramon Drive
I am the architect,acting for the owners,Dr.and Mrs.Harold Thompson,writing on the need for
an extension of time to submit our plans the above project for plan check.Although we have
completed the structural engineering and architectural drawings and were anticipating making a
timely submittal before the current May 18 deadline,an agency outside of our control has delayed
in providing one required part of the package.
Upon completion of the detailed final drawings and consultants reports and calculations in
November,I was advised by someone in the building division that we would need to have a new
site plan (showing the additions of the RPV planning review and appeal process notes)taken back
through the approval process at the LA County Fire Department.We took our plans there are were
given more notes to add and were also subjected to another review.That process has been
ongoing,and was further complicated by a new review procedure set up by the County in January.
This week we were informed that instead of our plans being ready,they had nearly established
their new procedures,and we would be notified of them at a future time.We were given no concrete
assurances of anything being ready before the current deadline for submittal,and so we must
petition for an extension of time to allow us to bring the updated and complete set of working
draWings to your office as soon as the County has certified them as per your request.
Attached is a check for the $323 extension fee.
Submitted,
John Maloney
Licensed California Architect C 18424
3318 SHERBOURNE DRIVE CULVER CITY,CA 90232-7438 johnmaloney3@mac.com c (310)562 0362 (310)204-4749
RESOLUTION NO.2010-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY THREE
SEPARATE PROPERTY OWNERS,THERBY UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY
APPROVE A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND GRADING PERMIT TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF A VACANT LOT WITH A NEW 3,463FP TWO-
STORY RESIDENCE AT 2700%SAN RAMON DRIVE (ZON2010-
00396).
WHEREAS,on February 10,2010,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.Resolution
No.2010-04,approving,with conditions a Site Plan Review and Grading Permit application;
and,
WHEREAS,on February 22,2010,three separate neighbors submitted a timely appeal
requesting the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's decision and deny the
proposed project based on public safety reasons;and,
WHEREAS,a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on April
12,2010,pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.(t1CEQAtI
),the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement),the City Council found no evidence that the Site Plan Review and Grading Permit
will have a significant effect on the environment and,therefore,the proposed project has been
found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303);and,
WHEREAS,on May 18,2010,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing,at
which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:That the proposed project includes 1,500yd3 of grading for the
construction of a new 27'-7"tall,3,463ft2 two-story residence.
Section 2:That the appeal,which raises concerns with site stability,drainage,
vehicular accessibility,fire hydrant installation,and neighborhood compatibility is not warranted.
Specifically,with regard to site stability,the applicant's geotechnical reports,which were
reviewed and approved by the City Geologist,concluded that the stability analysis is sufficient to
verify suitability of the proposed project in its location.Additionally,the City Geologist confirmed
that the proposed grading on the subject property should have no adverse impact on the
Tarapaca landslide.Therefore,all issues have been addressed from a geotechnical
perspective.
With regard to drainage,the amount of water that would come down to the San Ramon Canyon
streambed from the proposed project would be very limited and thus according to the City
Geologist would have a negligible effect on canyon erosion.
J -4
RESOLUTION NO.2010-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY THREE
SEPARATE PROPERTY OWNERS,THERBY UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY
APPROVE A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND GRADING PERMIT TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF A VACANT LOT WITH A NEW 3,463FP TWO-
STORY RESIDENCE AT 2700%SAN RAMON DRIVE (ZON2010-
00396).
WHEREAS,on February 10,2010,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.Resolution
No.2010-04,approving,with conditions a Site Plan Review and Grading Permit application;
and,
WHEREAS,on February 22,2010,three separate neighbors submitted a timely appeal
requesting the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's decision and deny the
proposed project based on public safety reasons;and,
WHEREAS,a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on April
12,2010,pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.(t1CEQAtI
),the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement),the City Council found no evidence that the Site Plan Review and Grading Permit
will have a significant effect on the environment and,therefore,the proposed project has been
found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303);and,
WHEREAS,on May 18,2010,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing,at
which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:That the proposed project includes 1,500yd3 of grading for the
construction of a new 27'-7"tall,3,463ft2 two-story residence.
Section 2:That the appeal,which raises concerns with site stability,drainage,
vehicular accessibility,fire hydrant installation,and neighborhood compatibility is not warranted.
Specifically,with regard to site stability,the applicant's geotechnical reports,which were
reviewed and approved by the City Geologist,concluded that the stability analysis is sufficient to
verify suitability of the proposed project in its location.Additionally,the City Geologist confirmed
that the proposed grading on the subject property should have no adverse impact on the
Tarapaca landslide.Therefore,all issues have been addressed from a geotechnical
perspective.
With regard to drainage,the amount of water that would come down to the San Ramon Canyon
streambed from the proposed project would be very limited and thus according to the City
Geologist would have a negligible effect on canyon erosion.
With regard to vehicular access,the County recorded vehicular easement for the subject site
meets the Development Code's required minimum width of 10',and therefore is adequate.
Additionally,all costs associated with any improvements within the public right-of-way to allow
unimpeded access to the property will be the applicant's responsibility.
With regard to fire hydrant installation,an on-site fire hydrant with underground connections is
required and will be accommodated as part of this project.The installation of the fire hydrant
may likely involve temporary activity within the existing access easement,such as demolition
and/or replacement of existing structures.
With regard to neighborhood compatibility,as discussed in Section 7 below,the proposed
project (3,463ft2 )is of a size that is within the average structure size of homes in the immediate
neighborhood,and is designed to achieve neighborhood compatibility.Specifically,the
architectural style,materials,and color of the proposed home are similar to what is found in the
neighborhood.Additionally,the proposed project is tucked into the slope rather than on top with
balanced grading on-site to preserve the hillside character.Further,the numerous articulations
help the residence appear less bulky or massive.The proposed project as designed is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood with regards to size,bulk or mass,and blends in
with the topography of the site.
Section 3:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the grading is to
accommodate a new residence with a driveway;and therefore,does not exceed that which is
necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot.
Section 4:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the proposed grading
and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with,
nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties.More specifically,the proposed
grading at the building pad area is to lower the existing grade and creating a new lower finished
grade.Lowering the building pad results in lowering the overall ridge of the new structure that
would have been higher if it was built in the same location on the lot,as measured from
preconstruction grade.
Section 5:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the nature of the grading
minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural.
More specifically, the total grading area is approximately 30%of the total lot size and the
remaining 70%of the lot will remain untouched.The applicant is only proposing to grade what
is necessary to accommodate a new residence and a driveway for access purposes.The
proposed project does not involve excessive grading beyond the building footprint for any yard
space other than a 4'wide walkway and an octagonal courtyard to the rear of the new home.
Additionally,the applicant is proposing to create 2:1 slopes beyond the proposed retaining walls
adjacent to the driveway,turnaround area,garage and 3:1 slopes beyond the rear of the new
home.The purpose of the created slopes is an attempt to blend them in with the natural slopes
existing beyond the grading area to make it appear continuous with the remaining slopes on the
subject lot.
Section 6:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the grading takes into
account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land
sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography.
More specifically,the proposed 2:1 and 3:1 slopes adjacent to the proposed new retaining walls
and structures are intended to blend in with the remaining existing slopes to preserve the
topographical features on site.
Resolution No.2010-37
Page 2 of 4
J -5
With regard to vehicular access,the County recorded vehicular easement for the subject site
meets the Development Code's required minimum width of 10',and therefore is adequate.
Additionally,all costs associated with any improvements within the public right-of-way to allow
unimpeded access to the property will be the applicant's responsibility.
With regard to fire hydrant installation,an on-site fire hydrant with underground connections is
required and will be accommodated as part of this project.The installation of the fire hydrant
may likely involve temporary activity within the existing access easement,such as demolition
and/or replacement of existing structures.
With regard to neighborhood compatibility,as discussed in Section 7 below,the proposed
project (3,463ft2 )is of a size that is within the average structure size of homes in the immediate
neighborhood,and is designed to achieve neighborhood compatibility.Specifically,the
architectural style,materials,and color of the proposed home are similar to what is found in the
neighborhood.Additionally,the proposed project is tucked into the slope rather than on top with
balanced grading on-site to preserve the hillside character.Further,the numerous articulations
help the residence appear less bulky or massive.The proposed project as designed is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood with regards to size,bulk or mass,and blends in
with the topography of the site.
Section 3:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the grading is to
accommodate a new residence with a driveway;and therefore,does not exceed that which is
necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot.
Section 4:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the proposed grading
and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with,
nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties.More specifically,the proposed
grading at the building pad area is to lower the existing grade and creating a new lower finished
grade.Lowering the building pad results in lowering the overall ridge of the new structure that
would have been higher if it was built in the same location on the lot,as measured from
preconstruction grade.
Section 5:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the nature of the grading
minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural.
More specifically, the total grading area is approximately 30%of the total lot size and the
remaining 70%of the lot will remain untouched.The applicant is only proposing to grade what
is necessary to accommodate a new residence and a driveway for access purposes.The
proposed project does not involve excessive grading beyond the building footprint for any yard
space other than a 4'wide walkway and an octagonal courtyard to the rear of the new home.
Additionally,the applicant is proposing to create 2:1 slopes beyond the proposed retaining walls
adjacent to the driveway,turnaround area,garage and 3:1 slopes beyond the rear of the new
home.The purpose of the created slopes is an attempt to blend them in with the natural slopes
existing beyond the grading area to make it appear continuous with the remaining slopes on the
subject lot.
Section 6:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the grading takes into
account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land
sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography.
More specifically,the proposed 2:1 and 3:1 slopes adjacent to the proposed new retaining walls
and structures are intended to blend in with the remaining existing slopes to preserve the
topographical features on site.
Resolution No.2010-37
Page 2 of 4
Section 7:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the grading and/or related
construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of the scale of
surrounding residences,including total square footage and lot coverage of residence and all
ancillary structures;architectural styles,including fagade treatments,structure height,open
space between structures,roof design,the apparent bulk or mass of the structure,number of
stories,and building materials;and front,side and rear yard setbacks.Specifically,the
proposed project will result in a 3,463ft2 two-story residence,which is 37%larger than the
average home (2,519ft2)and 16%smaller than the largest home in the neighborhood.The
entire structure will be set lower than the building pad levels of neighboring properties and will
only be visible from portions of the public right-of-way (Palos Verdes Drive East)and other
properties located in distant residential tracts.Due to the strategic location and finished building
pad level,no views will be obstructed by the proposed project.Additionally,the proposed
setbacks are larger and the proposed lot coverage is significantly below the maximum allowed
40%in a RS-2 zoning district and the neighboring properties,primarily due to the lot size.
Furthermore,the proposed home includes design elements typically found in Ranch style
homes similar to what exists in the immediate neighborhood and uses multiple setbacks to
reduce the apparent bulk or mass.
Section 8:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the grading would not
cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat
through removal of vegetation as none exist on the subject property.
Section 9:All grading criteria found in RPVMC §17.76.040(E)9 can be made with
exception of subsection (E)(9)b,which requires that no finished slopes be greater than 35%,
and subsection (E)(9)(e)iv,which requires that no retaining walls be taller than 5'in height
adjacent to driveways.The proposed project deviates from these two requirements because it
includes finished slopes greater than 35%adjacent to the proposed driveway,detached garage
and the residence and a 7'-8"tall retaining wall adjacent to the turn around area on the
proposed driveway.The Planning Commission may grant a request in excess of that
permissible under subsection (E)9 provided that all of the findings within subsection (E)10 can
be met.Subsection (E)10 can be met because the proposed project does not involve grading
beyond what is necessary for reasonable development of a residence and related access while
preserving the hillside character by preserving slopes to blend in with the existing slopes on site.
Unique from other neighboring lots,the subject parcel is a downsloping lot that requires
retaining walls to support a home and related access.To deny the request is to not allow the
construction of a new home and access,which is typical on any residential lot in the City.
Additionally,additional reviews and approvals (i.e.SUSMP and Geotechnical)will be required
as part of Building and Safety's plan check review to ensure public safety.Furthermore,from
an aesthetic standpoint,the proposed project cannot be seen from properties on San Ramon
Drive.Although it can be seen from other properties in neighboring tracts and from Palos
Verdes Drive East,the proposed project is no more apparent than other homes constructed at
the top of the canyon.
Section 10:That the Site Plan Review is warranted because the single-story portions
and other accessory structures of the proposed project (i.e.trellis,skylight,and solar panels)
that are not integral part of the proposed two-story structure comply with the RS-2 development
standards.
Section 11:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution,if available,must be sought,if governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of
Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.
Resolution No.2010-37
Page 30f4
J -6
Section 7:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the grading and/or related
construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of the scale of
surrounding residences,including total square footage and lot coverage of residence and all
ancillary structures;architectural styles,including fagade treatments,structure height,open
space between structures,roof design,the apparent bulk or mass of the structure,number of
stories,and building materials;and front,side and rear yard setbacks.Specifically,the
proposed project will result in a 3,463ft2 two-story residence,which is 37%larger than the
average home (2,519ft2)and 16%smaller than the largest home in the neighborhood.The
entire structure will be set lower than the building pad levels of neighboring properties and will
only be visible from portions of the public right-of-way (Palos Verdes Drive East)and other
properties located in distant residential tracts.Due to the strategic location and finished building
pad level,no views will be obstructed by the proposed project.Additionally,the proposed
setbacks are larger and the proposed lot coverage is significantly below the maximum allowed
40%in a RS-2 zoning district and the neighboring properties,primarily due to the lot size.
Furthermore,the proposed home includes design elements typically found in Ranch style
homes similar to what exists in the immediate neighborhood and uses multiple setbacks to
reduce the apparent bulk or mass.
Section 8:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the grading would not
cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat
through removal of vegetation as none exist on the subject property.
Section 9:All grading criteria found in RPVMC §17.76.040(E)9 can be made with
exception of subsection (E)(9)b,which requires that no finished slopes be greater than 35%,
and subsection (E)(9)(e)iv,which requires that no retaining walls be taller than 5'in height
adjacent to driveways.The proposed project deviates from these two requirements because it
includes finished slopes greater than 35%adjacent to the proposed driveway,detached garage
and the residence and a 7'-8"tall retaining wall adjacent to the turn around area on the
proposed driveway.The Planning Commission may grant a request in excess of that
permissible under subsection (E)9 provided that all of the findings within subsection (E)10 can
be met.Subsection (E)10 can be met because the proposed project does not involve grading
beyond what is necessary for reasonable development of a residence and related access while
preserving the hillside character by preserving slopes to blend in with the existing slopes on site.
Unique from other neighboring lots,the subject parcel is a downsloping lot that requires
retaining walls to support a home and related access.To deny the request is to not allow the
construction of a new home and access,which is typical on any residential lot in the City.
Additionally,additional reviews and approvals (i.e.SUSMP and Geotechnical)will be required
as part of Building and Safety's plan check review to ensure public safety.Furthermore,from
an aesthetic standpoint,the proposed project cannot be seen from properties on San Ramon
Drive.Although it can be seen from other properties in neighboring tracts and from Palos
Verdes Drive East,the proposed project is no more apparent than other homes constructed at
the top of the canyon.
Section 10:That the Site Plan Review is warranted because the single-story portions
and other accessory structures of the proposed project (i.e.trellis,skylight,and solar panels)
that are not integral part of the proposed two-story structure comply with the RS-2 development
standards.
Section 11:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution,if available,must be sought,if governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of
Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.
Resolution No.2010-37
Page 30f4
Section 12:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
contained in the public record,including the Staff Reports,minutes,records of proceedings,and
evidence presented at the public hearing,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
hereby denies the appeal,upholds the Planning Commission's decision,and approves the Site
Plan Review and Grading Permit application,subject to the conditions set forth in the attached
'Exhibit A'(Case No.ZON2010-00396).
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May 2010.
/s/Stefan Wolowicz
Mayor
Attest:
/s/Carla Morreale
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I,Carla Morreale,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby certify that the above
Resolution No.2010-37 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at
a regular meeting held on May 18,2010.
City Clerk
Resolution No.2010-37
Page 4 of 4
J -7
Section 12:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
contained in the public record,including the Staff Reports,minutes,records of proceedings,and
evidence presented at the public hearing,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
hereby denies the appeal,upholds the Planning Commission's decision,and approves the Site
Plan Review and Grading Permit application,subject to the conditions set forth in the attached
'Exhibit A'(Case No.ZON2010-00396).
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May 2010.
/s/Stefan Wolowicz
Mayor
Attest:
/s/Carla Morreale
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I,Carla Morreale,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby certify that the above
Resolution No.2010-37 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at
a regular meeting held on May 18,2010.
City Clerk
Resolution No.2010-37
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZON2009·00396
General Conditions:
1.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.
2.The Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor
modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such
modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with
the approved plans and conditions.Otherwise,any substantive change to the project
shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project,
which may require new and separate environmental review.
3.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.
4.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.
5.If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved
project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the
City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution,
approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless,prior to expiration,
a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement and approved by the Director.
6.Prior to the commencement of construction,the applicant shall obtain all applicable
permits as required by the Building and Safety Division.
7.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.
8.Unless otherwise designated in these conditions,all construction shall be completed in
substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective
date of this Resolution.
9.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.
Resolution No.2010-37
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 4J -8
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZON2009·00396
General Conditions:
1.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.
2.The Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor
modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such
modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with
the approved plans and conditions.Otherwise,any substantive change to the project
shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project,
which may require new and separate environmental review.
3.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.
4.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.
5.If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved
project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the
City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution,
approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless,prior to expiration,
a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement and approved by the Director.
6.Prior to the commencement of construction,the applicant shall obtain all applicable
permits as required by the Building and Safety Division.
7.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.
8.Unless otherwise designated in these conditions,all construction shall be completed in
substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective
date of this Resolution.
9.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.
Resolution No.2010-37
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 4
10.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 or easements before 7:00 AM,Monday through Saturday,in accordance
with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition.
11.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.
12.All grading,landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control
techniques,either through screening and/or watering.
13.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.
Project Specific Conditions:
14.This approval allows the grading and construction of a new two-story residence
consisting of the following:
Grading
i.750yd3 of cut (225yd3 within the building footprint &525yd 3 outside);
ii.750yd3 of fill (1yd 3 within the building footprint &749yd3 outside};
iii.Driveway with a maximum slope of 15%;
iv.3.5'tall retaining wall adjacent to the new driveway;
v.7.8'tall retaining wall adjacent to the turn-around area on the driveway;
vi.7'tall retaining wall to accommodate an octagonal courtyard to the rear;
Residence
vii.1,723ft2 first floor,1,340ft2 second floor,and 400ft2 detached garage;
viii.Patio/deck to the rear off the first/lower floor;
ix.One skylight on the roof;
x.Photovoltaic electric panels on the roof;
xi.Solar water heating panels on the roof;and,
xii.Trellis over the entry courtyard area.
15.Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications,the approved project
shall maintain a maximum of 40%lot coverage (14%proposed)and the following
setbacks from the applicable property lines:
Front
Side (W)
20'-0"(20'proposed to the garage,45'proposed from SFR)
5'-0"(20'proposed)
Resolution No.2010-37
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 4
J -9
10.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 or easements before 7:00 AM,Monday through Saturday,in accordance
with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition.
11.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.
12.All grading,landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control
techniques,either through screening and/or watering.
13.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.
Project Specific Conditions:
14.This approval allows the grading and construction of a new two-story residence
consisting of the following:
Grading
i.750yd3 of cut (225yd3 within the building footprint &525yd 3 outside);
ii.750yd3 of fill (1yd 3 within the building footprint &749yd3 outside};
iii.Driveway with a maximum slope of 15%;
iv.3.5'tall retaining wall adjacent to the new driveway;
v.7.8'tall retaining wall adjacent to the turn-around area on the driveway;
vi.7'tall retaining wall to accommodate an octagonal courtyard to the rear;
Residence
vii.1,723ft2 first floor,1,340ft2 second floor,and 400ft2 detached garage;
viii.Patio/deck to the rear off the first/lower floor;
ix.One skylight on the roof;
x.Photovoltaic electric panels on the roof;
xi.Solar water heating panels on the roof;and,
xii.Trellis over the entry courtyard area.
15.Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications,the approved project
shall maintain a maximum of 40%lot coverage (14%proposed)and the following
setbacks from the applicable property lines:
Front
Side (W)
20'-0"(20'proposed to the garage,45'proposed from SFR)
5'-0"(20'proposed)
Resolution No.2010-37
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 4
Side (E)
Rear
5'-0"(330'proposed)
15'-0"(20'-35'proposed)
16.The maximum overall height shall not exceed 27'-7"as measured from the point where
the lowest foundation or slab meets the finished grade;and 15'-4",as measured from
the average elevation of the setback line to the ridgeline (868)of the structure.
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.
17.Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20'front-yard setback area shall not exceed
50%.
18.A minimum 2-car garage shall be maintained,with each required parking space being
individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9'in width
and 20'in depth,with minimum 7'vertical clearance.
PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF PLANS INTO BUILDING AND SAFETY PLAN CHECK:
19.The applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement,in writing,that
they have read,understand,and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Resolution.Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90)days following
the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
20.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works for
any curb cuts,or any other temporary or permanent improvements within the public
rights-of-way.Further,the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the
Planning,Building and Code Enforcement department for any proposed dumpsters in
the public right-of-way.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
21.The applicant shall demonstrate to the Community Development Director that the 10'
easement leading from the street (San Ramon)to the property (2700~San Ramon)is
clear of any structures and vegetation and is physically accessible.The property owner
shall be responsible for all costs associated with the removal,relocation,and/or
replacement of any structures or vegetation located within the public right-of-way to
allow unimpeded vehicle access to the property.
22.The applicant shall submit a complete Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan to the
Building and Safety Division for review and approval.
23.The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report to the Building and Safety Division for
final review and approval.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT -PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT
ISSUANCE
24.Fire Department vehicular access roads must be installed and maintained in a
serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction.
Resolution No.2010-37
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 4
J -10
Side (E)
Rear
5'-0"(330'proposed)
15'-0"(20'-35'proposed)
16.The maximum overall height shall not exceed 27'-7"as measured from the point where
the lowest foundation or slab meets the finished grade;and 15'-4",as measured from
the average elevation of the setback line to the ridgeline (868)of the structure.
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.
17.Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20'front-yard setback area shall not exceed
50%.
18.A minimum 2-car garage shall be maintained,with each required parking space being
individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9'in width
and 20'in depth,with minimum 7'vertical clearance.
PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF PLANS INTO BUILDING AND SAFETY PLAN CHECK:
19.The applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement,in writing,that
they have read,understand,and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Resolution.Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90)days following
the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
20.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works for
any curb cuts,or any other temporary or permanent improvements within the public
rights-of-way.Further,the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the
Planning,Building and Code Enforcement department for any proposed dumpsters in
the public right-of-way.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
21.The applicant shall demonstrate to the Community Development Director that the 10'
easement leading from the street (San Ramon)to the property (2700~San Ramon)is
clear of any structures and vegetation and is physically accessible.The property owner
shall be responsible for all costs associated with the removal,relocation,and/or
replacement of any structures or vegetation located within the public right-of-way to
allow unimpeded vehicle access to the property.
22.The applicant shall submit a complete Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan to the
Building and Safety Division for review and approval.
23.The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report to the Building and Safety Division for
final review and approval.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT -PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT
ISSUANCE
24.Fire Department vehicular access roads must be installed and maintained in a
serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction.
Resolution No.2010-37
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 4
25.The gradient of Fire Department vehicle access roads shall not exceed 15%unless
approved by the Chief.
26.Grade breaks shall not exceed the maximum angle of approach or departure for Fire
Department apparatus.
27.Building address numbers shall be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible
and legible from the street fronting the property.The numbers shall be a minim of 3"
high,1"wide with a 3/8"stroke.For buildings set back more than 150'from the street,
the numbers shall be a minimum of 5"high,2"wide with a W'stroke.
28.Provide a 1-hour fire-resistive Occupancy Separation between the R-3 occupancy and
the U-1 occupancy as required by Building Code 302.1 and as set forth in Building Code
302.4.
29.Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.Plans shall be submitted to the
Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation.
30.Exit doors shall be capable of opening without the use of a key or any special knowledge
or effort.
31.Comply with Title 24,310.9.1 regarding fire warning systems.Smoke detectors to be
hard wired with a battery backup.
32.Comply with Title 24,310.4 regarding secondary egress requirement.
33.The applicant shall install one on-site fire hydrant.The required fire flow for PUBLIC fire
hydrants at this location is 1,250 gpm,at 20 psi residual pressure,for duration of 2 hours
over and above maximum daily domestic demand.The hydrant shall be installed prior to
Building Permit Final.
Resolution No.2010-37
Exhibit A
Page 4 of4
J -11
25.The gradient of Fire Department vehicle access roads shall not exceed 15%unless
approved by the Chief.
26.Grade breaks shall not exceed the maximum angle of approach or departure for Fire
Department apparatus.
27.Building address numbers shall be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible
and legible from the street fronting the property.The numbers shall be a minim of 3"
high,1"wide with a 3/8"stroke.For buildings set back more than 150'from the street,
the numbers shall be a minimum of 5"high,2"wide with a W'stroke.
28.Provide a 1-hour fire-resistive Occupancy Separation between the R-3 occupancy and
the U-1 occupancy as required by Building Code 302.1 and as set forth in Building Code
302.4.
29.Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.Plans shall be submitted to the
Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation.
30.Exit doors shall be capable of opening without the use of a key or any special knowledge
or effort.
31.Comply with Title 24,310.9.1 regarding fire warning systems.Smoke detectors to be
hard wired with a battery backup.
32.Comply with Title 24,310.4 regarding secondary egress requirement.
33.The applicant shall install one on-site fire hydrant.The required fire flow for PUBLIC fire
hydrants at this location is 1,250 gpm,at 20 psi residual pressure,for duration of 2 hours
over and above maximum daily domestic demand.The hydrant shall be installed prior to
Building Permit Final.
Resolution No.2010-37
Exhibit A
Page 4 of4