RPVCCA_CC_SR_2011_08_02_M_License_Agreement_For_5903_Clint_PlaceCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~.~~
AUGUST 2,2011 ~~\
LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR 5903 CLINT PLACE
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER GSl--
So Kim,Assistant Planner t?ffv
Approve the attached license agreement,allowing grading within the City's slope easement on 5903
Clint Place.
BACKGROUND
On November 26,1996,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.Resolution Nos.96-40 and 96-41
(attached),approving Parcel Map No.24297 &Grading Permit No.1844,creating two separate
parcels:5901 and 5903 Clint Place.More specifically,the pre-existing lot known as 5901 Clint
Place was split into two separate lots,creating 5903 Clint Place (subject property).Additionally,as
part of the approved subdivision,the pre-existing slope easement on the downslope portion of the
lot,intended for the potential expansion of Mossbank Drive,was relocated so that future
development on the site would not conflict with the easement.
On June 28,2011,the Planning Commission conditionally approved (Case No.ZON2011-00458)a
request to construct a new 26'tall,5,472ft2 split-story residence with 2,985yd3 of grading;construct
retaining walls measuring up to 14.5'in height;reduce the required front yard setback from 20'to
14';and revise Grading Permit No 1844 to allow for a driveway gradient in excess of 16.7%.A
portion of the approved grading was over an existing City slope easement on the property.As such,
the project approval was contingent upon the City Council's approval of a license agreement to allow
grading within the City's slope easement.
DISCUSSION
As described above,the Planning Commission approved the construction of a new residence on a
vacant property located at 5903 Clint Place,which included grading to lower the building pad area.
Lowering the building pad was allowed to eliminate any potential for view impacts to the neighboring
properties.By lowering the existing grade,a new top of slope is created at a lower elevation on the
M-1
MEMORANDUM:5903 Clint Place
August 2,2011
Page 2
eXisting property.Since the existing slope easement is identified as the area between the existing
top of slope that stretches 85'to the rear property line,the proposed grading will be over a portion of
the existing easement.
Given that the slope easement was intended for the potential expansion of Mossbank Drive,Staff
met with the Public Works Department and the City Attorney to determine if the proposed grading
over the City's slope easement can be allowed and what impacts it may have to the potential
expansion of Mossbank Drive.The Public Works Department informed Staff that there would be no
impacts to the potential expansion of Mossbank Drive since the proposed grading will encroach less
than 17'within the 85'wide easement.Additionally,the City Attorney informed Staff that grading can
be allowed within the City's slope easement,with City Council's approval.Therefore,a condition of
approval requiring City Council's approval of the license agreement was added to the proposed
project.
The attached license agreement is to allow grading over a portion of the City's slope easement.The
property owner will not be allowed to construct any primary or accessory structures in this area
except a perimeter or safety fence,as required by the BUilding &Safety Division,and landscaping.
The property owner has agreed to this condition.
CONCLUSION
As discussed above,since there will be no adverse impacts by allowing the property owner to grade
into a portion of the slope easement on the private property of 5903 Clint Place,as reviewed by the
Public Works Department and the City Attorney,Staff recommends that the City Council approve the
attached license agreement.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
There are no fiscal impacts related to this request.
ATTACHMENTS
•License Agreement
•P.C.Minutes (June 28,2011)
•P.C.Resolution No.2011-23
M-2
LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ACCESS AND GRADING
THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ACCESS AND GRADING ("Agreement")is
made and entered into on this __day of ,2011 ("Effective Date"),by and
between Robin Vandeveer,an individual ("Licensee"),and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,a
California municipal corporation ("Licensor"),collectively known as the "Parties."
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS,Licensee is the owner of certain real property located at 5903 Clint Place,
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275 (Assessor's Parcel Number 7578-015-036)
("Property");
WHEREAS,Licensor owns a slope easement on the northerly portion ofthe Property,as
generally depicted in plan attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference
("Slope Easement");
WHEREAS,by lowering the exiting grade,a new top of slope will be created at a lower
elevation on the Property and,as a result,a flat area will be created around the perimeter ofthe
new building footprint,with the northern portion entirely within the Slope Easement;
WHEREAS,City staff has determined that Licensee's proposed grading within the Slope
Easement will have no impact to the potential expansion of Mossbank Drive,which was the
intended goal of the Slope Easement;
WHEREAS,Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-23 ("Resolution")approves a
height variation,grading permit,variance and revision to Grading Permit No. 1844,subject to
certain conditions of approval;
WHEREAS,condition 14 in the Resolution's conditions of approval requires a license
agreement,approved by the City Council of the City,which allows the Licensee to grade within
the Slope Easement,and the Parties intend for this Agreement to fulfill that requirement;and
WHEREAS,Licensor is willing to grant Licensee a non-exclusive,revocable license for
access to and use ofthe Slope Easement,as more particularly described in this Agreement,in
connection with grading approved in the Resolution.
AGREEMENT
NOW,THEREFORE,for and in consideration ofthe foregoing recitals,the mutual
covenants and agreements contained herein,and other good and valuable consideration,the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,Licensee and Licensor hereby
covenant and agree as follows:
1378232-2 M-3
1.License and Restrictions.
1.1 Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement,Licensor hereby
grants a non-exclusive license (the "License")to Licensee and its agents,employees and
contractors for the exclusive purpose of access to and grading ofthe Slope Easement in the
grading area not to exceed the 1072 elevation,as shown on the plan prepared on June 14,2011,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference ("Plan").
1.2 Licensor shall retain a licensed contractor to perform the work described
herein.
1.3 No primary or accessory structures shall be allowed in the Slope Easement
except a perimeter or safety fence or other safety paraphernalia,as required and approved by the
City's Building and Safety Division.
1.4 Licensee and its agents,employees and contractors may bring equipment
and other materials onto the Slope Easement in connection with the License purpose stated in
Section 1.1 of this Agreement.
1.5 Licensee and its agents,employees and contractors shall not conduct any
activity in the Slope Easement other than in connection with the License purpose stated in
Section 1.1 of this Agreement.Licensee and its agents,employees and contractors shall not use
the Slope Easement in any way that will conflict with any law,statute,ordinance,rule,regulation
or requirement of any duly constituted public authorities with jurisdiction over the Slope
Easement,whether now in force or hereafter enacted or promulgated.Licensee and its agents,
employees and contractors shall not grant any party other than the Licensor or the Licensee and
its agents,employees and contractors the right to occupy or use the Slope Easement.
2.Grading and Compaction.In consideration for the License,Licensee hereby
agrees to grade on the Slope Easement in accordance with the approved Plan.
3.Term of License.The License shall remain in full force and effect from the
Effective Date until the completion of the grading work,as evidenced by the City's final
approval thereof,and in any case by the expiration date of the permit issued by the City's
Building and Safety Department,unless this Agreement is sooner terminated pursuant to Section
9 ofthis Agreement or is amended by the Parties in accordance with Section 14 of this
Agreement.
4.Access to Slope Easement by Licensor.Licensee agrees that Licensor and its
representatives shall have access to the Slope Easement as necessary to verify compliance with
the provisions of this Agreement.These access rights are in addition to any right of access of
Licensor pursuant to its ownership of the Slope Easement,its Municipal Code,or otherwise.
5.Liens.Licensee and its agents,employees and contractors shall not suffer or
permit to be enforced against the Slope Easement,any mechanics',materialmen's,contractors'
or subcontractors'liens or any claim for damage arising from the License work,and Licensee
shall pay,or cause to be paid,all of such liens,claims or demands before any action is brought to
enforce the same against the Slope Easement.
1378232-2 M-4
6.Payment of Claims.In addition to,and not in limitation of,Licensor's other
rights and remedies hereunder,should Licensee fail within twenty (20)days of a request from
Licensor either (a)to pay and discharge any lien,claim or demand as provided in Section 5,or
(b)to protect,indemnify,defend and hold Licensee free and harmless as provided in Section 8,
then,in any such case,Licensor may,at its option,pay any such lien,claim or demand or settle
or discharge any action therefor or satisfy any judgment thereon,and all reasonable costs,
expenses and other amounts incurred by Licensor in connection therewith (including reasonable
attorneys'fees)shall be paid to Licensor by Licensee upon demand,together with interest
thereon at the maximum rate permitted by law from the date paid by Licensor until repaid by
Licensee.
7.Assumption of Risk.Licensee shall inspect the Slope Easement prior to its use
and shall accept the Slope Easement for its use in an "as is"condition.Licensee shall exercise
its privileges hereunder at its own risk and its own expense,assuming full responsibility for all
risks incidental to the performance of this Agreement and the use of the Slope Easement.
Licensor assumes no responsibility whatsoever for the safe condition,security or maintenance of
the Slope Easement,nor for the protection of persons and property thereon,and during the term
of this License,Licensee shall be solely responsible for maintenance and security of the Slope
Easement or changes in the condition ofthe Slope Easement caused by or arising from:(i)any
activity,use or performance by Licensee or its contractors,agents or employees under this
Agreement;or (ii)any activity,use or performance by Licensee or its contractors,agents or
employees on or in the Slope Easement.
8.Indemnity.Licensee hereby agrees to protect,indemnify,defend and hold
Licensor and its employees,members,contractors,representatives,officers,directors and agents
(collectively,"Licensor Indemnitees"),free and harmless from and against (collectively,
"Indemnify")any and all claims,causes of action,demands,damages,liens,liabilities,losses,
costs and expenses (including,without limitation,reasonable attorneys'fees)to which Licensor
Indemnitees may become exposed or which Licensor Indemnitees may incur in connection with
Licensee and its agents,employees and contractors exercising their rights and performing their
obligations hereunder (collectively,"Losses").Notwithstanding the foregoing,it is the intent of
Licensor and Licensee that Licensee shall be liable to Indemnify Licensor Indemnitees under this
Section irrespective ofthe cause of the Losses (i.e.,regardless of whether or not caused by any
act,omission,willful misconduct or negligent conduct,whether active or passive,of Licensee,or
otherwise),except to the extent that the Losses are caused by the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of Licensor Indemnitees.Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein,
the provisions of this Section shall survive the termination of the License for one (1)year except
as to claims made and pending at such time (collectively,the "Indemnified Losses").
9.Default and Termination.In the event of any default under the Resolution or
under the Agreement,the party not in default may declare a default and termination of this
Agreement by written notice to the defaulting party,which default and termination shall be
effective on a date to be stated in such notice,which date shall not be less than ten (10)days after
mailing or personal service of such notice,unless such default is cured before the effective date
of termination stated in such notice.Any necessary restoration of the Slope Easement
subsequent to the effective date oftermination shall be in conformance with Section 10 below,
which shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
1378232-2 M-5
10.Removal and Restoration.If this Agreement expires or is tenninated for any
reason prior to completion of the grading work,Licensee shall,in the sole discretion of Licensor
and upon written notice from Licensor,and at the sole expense of Licensee,and within such
reasonable period of time detennined in writing by the City's Community Development
Director,complete the grading work to the extent necessary to leave the Slope Easement in a
safe and stable condition,including but not limited to completion of any necessary retaining
walls and any measures that are needed to prevent erosion,and remove all equipment and
personal property from the Slope Easement.If Licensee is obligated pursuant to this Section and
fails to complete the grading work to the extent necessary to leave the Slope Easement in a safe
and stable condition and/or to remove all equipment and personal property from the Slope
Easement,after notification by Licensor,Licensor is authorized to complete the grading work
and/or remove all equipment and personal property from the Slope Easement.In that event,
Licensee shall reimburse Licensor for all costs incurred by Licensor,within ten (10)days of
receipt of a written demand therefore from Licensor.This Section shall survive the tennination
of this Agreement.
11.Maintenance.During the term of the License,Licensee shall,at its sole risk and
expense,maintain the Slope Easement,provide security as necessary,and keep the Slope
Easement in a safe,clean and sanitary condition at all times.
12.No Estate.This Agreement provides only a right of use of temporary duration
and does not give Licensee any added interest,title,estate or right of any kind or extent
whatsoever,whether legal or equitable prescriptive or otherwise,in the Slope Easement,no
matter how much money is expended on the Slope Easement nor how long this Agreement runs.
Neither a partnership nor a joint venture is in any way intended by this Agreement.Licensee
agrees that it will not claim at any time any interest,estate or right in the Slope Easement by
virtue of this Agreement or by virtue of Licensee's occupancy,use or expenditures under this
Agreement.
13.Titles.The titles used in this Agreement are for general reference only and are
not part of the Agreement.
14.Entire Agreement.This Agreement,including any other documents incorporated
herein by specific reference,represents the entire and integrated agreement between Licensor
and Licensee and supersedes all prior negotiations,representations or agreements,either written
or oral.This Agreement may be modified or amended,or provisions or breach may be waived,
only by subsequent written agreement signed by both parties.
15.Governing Law.This Agreement shall be construed,enforced and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State of California,excluding California's choice of law rules.
Venue for any such action relating to this Agreement shall be in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court.
16.Assignment.Neither this Agreement nor any part thereof shall be assigned by
Licensee without the prior written consent of the Licensor.Any such purported assignment
without written consent shall be null and void,and Licensee shall hold harmless,defend and
1378232-2 M-6
indemnify Licensor and its officers,officials,employees,agents and representatives with respect
to any claim,demand or action arising from any unauthorized assignment.
17.Notices.
Except as otherwise required by law,any notice or other communication
authorized or required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received on (a)
the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during Licensor's regular
business hours or (b)on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail,
postage prepaid,to the addresses listed below,or at such other address as one party may notify
the other:
To Licensor:
Joel Rojas,AICP
Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
To Licensee:
Robin Vandeveer
236 The Strand
Hermosa Beach,CA 90254-5056
18.Counterparts.This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts,each of
which shall be deemed an original,and all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
19.Attorneys'Fees.Should Licensor or Licensee institute any action or proceeding
to enforce this Agreement,or for damages by reason of any alleged breach ofthis Agreement,or
for a declaration of rights hereunder,the prevailing party in any such action or proceeding shall
be entitled to receive from the non-prevailing party all costs and expenses,including,without
limitation,reasoQ.able attorneys'fees,incurred by the prevailing party in connection with such
action or proceeding.
20.No Recording of Agreement or Memorandum of Agreement.The parties agree
that neither this Agreement nor any memorandum hereof shall be recorded in the Official
Records of Los Angeles County,California.
21.Mutual Cooperation.Each party hereto agrees to execute any and all documents
and writings that are reasonably necessary or expedient to carry out the intent ofthis Agreement,
to do such other reasonable acts as will further the purposes hereof,and to refrain from any
actions which would impede or otherwise interfere with the other party with respect to the
performance of its duties and obligations hereunder.
22.Construction.In the event of any asserted ambiguity in,or dispute regarding the
interpretation of any matter herein,the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved by
any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who causes the
1378232-2 M-7
uncertainty to exist or against the party who drafted the Agreement or who drafted that portion of
the Agreement.
23.Non-Waiver of Terms,Rights and Remedies.Licensor's waiver of one or more
terms or conditions of this Agreement is not a waiver of breach or other terms or conditions of
this Agreement,or of a subsequent breach of the terms or conditions waived.
.24.Severability.If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid,
illegal,or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,the remaining provisions
of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
25.Opportunity to Consult with Own Counsel.Each party agrees that it has reviewed
and understood the scope and effect of the provisions of this Agreement and has affixed its
signature hereto voluntarily and without coercion.Licensee further acknowledges that it has had
an opportunity to consult with an attorney of its own choosing regarding the terms of this
Agreement.Neither party has relied upon any representation or statement made by the other
party hereto which is not specifically set forth in this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,Licensor and Licensee have caused this Agreement to be
executed and sealed on the Effective Date.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ("Licensor")
Mayor
ATTEST:
By:_
City Clerk
ROBIN VANDEVEER ("Licensee")
By:_
Print:_
1378232-2 M-8
EXHIBIT A
CURRENT SLOPE EASEMENT LINE
,...."':or
,
\
\
\
\,
\,
\
\
\
\
\,
\,,,,,
,,
\
\
\",i'i ,
f:.t ,~',
''t \
\~}A.:,-
IS!i;\,"<,
\
\
\
r;;,
-",
\,,,
,
"
,,,,
\
\
~.
I
",
"
1378232-2 M-9
EXHIBITB
PLOT PLAN FOR HOUSE <PRESENTED AT THE JUNE 28 TH P.C.MEETING)
'...~
\
\
\
\,,,
\,,
\,
\
\
\"\\
\,i,~'
'-rs",QJ \
\
\
\
\
\
-?
\"",,,,,
,,,,,,
,,
"-,
1378232-2 M-10
Approved
July 12, 2011
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 28, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse
Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Emenhiser led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ATTENDANCE
Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Vice Chairman
Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin.
Absent: Commissioner Knight was excused
Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Assistant Planner Kim.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Commissioner unanimously approved the agenda as presented.
COMMUNICATIONS
Director Rojas reported that at their last meeting the City Council initiated a proposed
code amendment to allow ancillary residential uses in commercial districts. The
Director explained that the proposed code amendment language will come before the
Planning Commission within a few months.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items):
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Height Variation, Grading Permit and Variance (Case No. ZON2010-00458):
5903 Clint Place
Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, briefly reviewing the previous proposal
for the property that was before the Commission and the Commission’s reasons for
M-11
Planning Commission Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 2
denial. She explained the scope of the new project and the need for the various
applications. As discussed in the staff report, staff was able to make the necessary
findings for this proposed project. She noted that, because there will be some grading
occurring in the City easement, Public Works reviewed the proposal and had no
concerns. Further, the City Attorney has advised that if the applicant should propose to
do any improvements within this easement area, they will have to obtain City Council
approval. If this project is approved by the Planning Commission the City Attorney will
draft a license easement for review by the City Council. She stated that staff was
recommending approval of the project, as conditioned in the staff report.
Commissioner Leon asked if the current silhouette at the property reflects the newly
redesigned project, and not the previous project.
Assistant Planner Kim stated that the current silhouette is accurate.
Commissioner Leon noted the proposed swimming pool near the extreme slope, and
asked if there will be anything done to prevent leaks that could potentially cause
problems or damage.
Assistant Planner Kim answered that the pool will be built per the California Building
Code. She noted that the pool is not on an extreme slope.
Director Rojas added there is no requirement for pools to have leak detection systems
or other devices. Those restrictions were only required in the moratorium area when
pools were allowed to be built.
Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing.
Robin Vandeveer (property owner) hoped the newly revised plan is satisfactory to the
Commission, noting that he has kept the building on the flat pad and eliminated the
aspects of the slope issues.
Robert Tavasci (architect) stated he was available for any questions.
Al Mashouf (5901 Clint Place) stated he was happy with this newly revised project and
felt that the other neighbors were happy as well. He noted that the project most affects
his property and the neighbor on the other side of the applicant. He stated that the
project, as is, is acceptable to him, however he felt that the ridgeline could come down a
few more feet so that it would not affect any of his view, and that the architect has
indicated he will be able to lower the ridgeline an additional two feet.
Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Tetreault considered this to be a very unique project on a unique piece
of property, and that this house would not be compatible with the neighborhood
otherwise as it is quite a bit larger than other homes in the neighborhood. However,
M-12
Planning Commission Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 3
because of the uniqueness of the property and because the house will be tucked away
and not visible, he could support the project. He did not want this house to be the
standard for any other project in this area.
Commissioner Leon moved to approve the project as recommended by staff,
seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2011-23, approving the
project, was approved (6-0).
2. Zone Change amendment revision (Case No. ZON2009-00053): 4194
Maritime Road
Commissioner Lewis abstained from this item, and left the dais.
Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining this is more of a procedural clean-
up item. He explained the past Planning Commission decision to re-zone the
neighborhood to RS-5, and that the Commission had agreed to postpone the re-zoning
of this particular lot because at that time, as it was the subject of a Lot Line Adjustment
application that became complicated and was appealed to the City Council. Now that
the lot line adjustment has been finalized and recorded on this lot, staff is bringing the
item back to recommend rezoning the lot to RS-5 to be consistent with the rest of the
RS-5 neighborhood. He noted that there is no Open Space Hazard area on the lot and
so the entire lot is being re-zoned from an RS-2 zone to an RS-5 zone. He stated that
staff was recommending approval of the proposed zone change, which will then be
forwarded to the City Council.
Commissioner Gerstner asked if the owner of this lot was in favor of the proposed zone
change.
Director Rojas answered that the owner is in favor of the proposal.
Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if there was any input or feedback from the
Homeowners Association.
Director Rojas stated the HOA was in favor of the entire zone change for the area.
Commissioner Leon asked if this will allow for the lot to be split.
Director Rojas answered that the lot line adjustment was approved at a square footage
that will not allow for the lot to be split.
Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if staff is aware of any future project to develop this lot.
Director Rojas answered that in previous testimony the owner had stated he had no
plans to develop this lot. However, if there are plans to develop the lot, development
will be subject to all of the RS-5 zoning standards.
M-13
Planning Commission Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 4
Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the project as recommended by staff,
forwarding this recommendation to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner
Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2011-24 was approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner
Lewis abstaining.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Proposed clean-up amendments to the Planning Commission Rules and
Procedures
Commissioner Lewis returned to the dais.
Director Rojas presented the staff report, noting the item was at the suggestion of
Commissioner Knight to have language that better explains the difference between an
abstention and a recusal. He noted that Commissioner Knight had seen this language
at a previous meeting and was in agreement with it. He also noted that along with this
language staff has included other minor clarification language. With that, staff is
recommending the Planning Commission review and approve the updated Rules and
Procedures.
Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, he
closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to adopt the updated rules and procedures as
recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. PC Resolution
2011-25 was approved, (6-0).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. Minutes of May 24, 2011
Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by
Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved without objection
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS
5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on July 12, 2011
The Commissioners reviewed and accepted the pre-agenda.
Commissioners Leon and Emenhiser noted they will be absent from the July 12th
meeting.
M-14
Planning Commission Minutes
June 28, 2011
Page 5
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
M-15
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-23
Page 1
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2011-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, A
HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT, VARIANCE AND REVISION
TO GRADING PERMIT NO. 1844 (CASE NO. ZON2010-00458) TO 1)
CONSTRUCT A 26’ TALL, 5,472FT² SPLIT-STORY RESIDENCE WITH
A REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 14’; 2) CONDUCT 2,985YD³
OF GRADING (13YD³ ON 5901 CLINT PLACE); 3) CONSTRUCT
RETAINING WALLS MEASURING UP TO 14’-6” IN HEIGHT; AND 4)
INSTALL A DRIVEWAY WITH 20% SLOPE AT A VACANT PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5903 CLINT PLACE.
WHEREAS, on November 26, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a subdivision
(Parcel Map No. 24297), creating two separate parcels: 5901 and 5903 Clint Place. More
specifically, 5901 Clint Place was split into two separate lots, creating 5903 Clint Place (subject
property). A grading permit was also approved to permit 340yd³ of grading to create a larger
building pad and a driveway access on the subject property. A 7’ tall retaining wall was also
approved along the side property line, directly adjacent to the proposed driveway; and,
WHEREAS, as a result of the Parcel Map No. 24297, 5903 Clint Place was created
meeting the Development Code’s required minimum lot size (8,000ft²), lot width (65’), lot depth
(100’), and building pad area (3,000ft²). It was determined that the subject lot was physically
suitable for the type and density of development allowed in an RS-5 zoning district. The pre-
existing slope easement on the downslope portion of the lot, intended for the potential
expansion of Mossbank Drive, was relocated so that future development on the site will not
conflict with the easement; and
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2010, the Planning Commission denied a request (Case No.
ZON2009-00400) to construct a new 7,686ft² residence with 4,650yd³ of grading 5903 Clint
Place based on concerns related to the proposed structure size, bulk/mass, quantity of grading,
and construction over extreme slopes; and,
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2011, the applicant submitted a new application (ZON2010-
00458), requesting to construct a new 5,472ft² residence with 2,983yd³ of grading at 5903 Clint
Place; and,
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2011, the project was deemed incomplete based on
insufficient information; and,
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2011, the project was deemed complete after receiving
additional information; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement), the Planning Commission found no evidence that Case No. ZON2010-00458 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,
M-16
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-23
Page 2
WHEREAS, a public notice was mailed to all property owners within a 500’ radius
from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on May 19, 2011,
pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 28,
2011, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The proposed project is a request to 1) construct a 26’ tall, 5,472ft² split-
story residence (including garage) with 2,985³ of grading; 2) construct an upsloping retaining
wall up to 14’-6” in height along the south property line; 3) construct several retaining walls
measuring up to 12’-7” in height to accommodate stairways, yard space and pool area in the
east side yard; 4) reduce the required front yard setback of 20’ to 14’; and 5) revise the
approved Grading Permit No. 1844 to allow for a driveway gradient in excess of 16.7% on a
vacant lot located at 5903 Clint Place. Additionally, a retaining wall measuring up to 11.5’ in
height on the access easement located on the abutting property (5901 Clint Place) is requested
to accommodate a new driveway.
Section 2: Approval of a Variance to allow a reduced front yard setback of 14’ when
the Code requires a minimum of 20’ is warranted because:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply
generally to other property in the same zoning district. More specifically, the subject
property contains a slope easement which makes up approximately ¾ of the
property. The remaining ¼ of the lot contains a building pad, some extreme slope
areas that are not suitable for development and a smaller flat area large enough to
accommodate an accessory structure. The existing development limitations on the
subject property leave a relatively small building pad area. The topographic
conditions and development restrictions on the subject property are an exceptional
and extraordinary circumstance that does not apply to most properties in the same
zoning district.
B. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners
under like conditions in the same zoning district. More specifically, two of the twenty
closest homes (5888 Mossbank and 5901 Waukesha Place) were granted approvals
for reduced setbacks on their property based on difficulties developing the lot due to
the inadequate size of the building pad and access to their garage. The
topographical conditions and development restrictions for the subject property is very
similar to 5888 Mossbank property and therefore a reduced front yard setback is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners, who are under like
conditions in the same zoning district and neighborhood.
C. Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located.
More specifically, the subject lot is a flag lot and is not readily accessible to the
M-17
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-23
Page 3
public. Additionally, the proposed setback reduction will not be readily visible as it is
located approximately 15’ below the street level.
D. Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located.
More specifically, the proposed project is consistent with the Urban Environmental
Policies by constructing an additional residential dwelling unit on a vacant lot,
thereby retaining the present predominance of single-family residences found
throughout the community (Policy No. 1); including various energy conservation
methods in the housing design (Policy No. 12); and lowering the finished grade,
thereby ensuring views reasonably expected by neighboring residents (Policy No.
14).
Section 3: Approval of a Major Grading Permit to allow 2,985yd³ (2,972yd³ at 5903
Clint Place & 13yd³ at 5901 Clint Place) of earth movement is warranted because:
A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use
of the lot. The primary use of the subject lot is residential as identified in the City’s
General Plan and Zoning map. More specifically, a total of 2,983yd³ of grading is
proposed to lower the building pad area to accommodate a new split-level residence
on the subject lot and a driveway over an easement located on the abutting property
at 5901 Clint Place.
B. 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 project involves
approximately 2,116yd³ (including driveway) of excavation to lower the finished
grade by approximately 15’. This results in a new residence which is only 5’ above
the preconstruction grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area
covered by the structure to the ridgeline. If the applicant were to construct the
proposed 26’ tall residence on existing grade, all areas over 16’ in height will
significantly impair the ocean view from the abutting property (5901 Clint Place) and
from several residential properties located along Woodbrook Road. Therefore,
lowering the building pad elevation to accommodate the new residence eliminates
view impacts while allowing the applicant to construct a two-story residence.
C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished
contours are reasonably natural. More specifically, the proposed grading minimizes
disturbance of the lot by altering only the southerly ¼ portion while the remaining ¾
of the lot will remain untouched. The request only involves grading in areas
necessary to accommodate the new residence, driveway and access to the new pool
area.
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and
appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or
manufactured slope into the natural topography. More specifically, the proposed
grading preserves natural topographic features of the site by altering only ¼ of the
lot, while the remaining ¾ will be unaltered and left in its original condition.
E. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. More specifically, the
M-18
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-23
Page 4
proposed structure size will not significantly alter the neighborhood character
because the new home will be located approximately 15’ below street level and will
be hidden from the neighboring properties. Additionally, the proposed lot coverage
will be smaller than most neighboring properties because the size of the subject lot is
more than double the average sized lot while the buildable area is relatively small.
Furthermore, the proposed façade treatments, architectural style, structure height,
roof design, number of stories, building materials and bulk/mass of the new
residence blends in with the neighborhood character. The setbacks are consistent
with neighboring properties, including the reduced front yard setback, as described in
Section 2.
F. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation because none is found on
the subject property.
G. The grading does not conform to standards detailed under 17.76.040(E)(9) for
grading on slopes and heights of retaining walls. However, the proposed grading in
excess of that permissible under 17.76.040(9) is warranted because:
i. The criteria of subsections 17.76.040(E)(1) through (E)(8) are satisfied;
ii. The approval is consistent with the purposes of the Grading Permit. The
purpose of the Grading Permit is to 1) permit reasonable development of land
and minimizing fire hazards; 2) ensure the maximum preservation of the natural
scenic character of the area consistent with reasonable economic use of such
property; 3) ensure that the development of each parcel of land occurs in a
manner harmonious with adjacent lands; and 4) ensure that each project
complies with all goals and policies of the general plan, specific plan and any
amendments. More specifically, the proposed retaining walls in excess of the
Code allowed height provide access to the subject property and allows for
reasonable development of the property by accommodating a new residence at
a lower elevation, thereby eliminating potential view impacts to neighboring
properties. The proposed grading alters ¼ of the property while the remaining
¾ of the lot will remain untouched, ensuring maximum preservation of the
natural character of the property after reasonable development. Furthermore,
the proposed development does not alter the existing neighborhood character
and is designed in a harmonious manner with neighboring properties, as
evidenced in Section 3(E). Lastly, the proposed project is consistent with the
policies in the General Plan as evidenced in Section 2(D).
iii. Departure from the standards in subsection 17.76.040(E)(9) will not constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity. More specifically, the reason for constructing retaining walls in
excess of Code allowed height limits is solely to provide access to the subject
property and develop a single-family residence without causing view impacts to
neighboring properties. The remaining ¾ of the lot will remain untouched.
Additionally, there are other properties in close proximity, such as 5888
Mossbank that were allowed similar deviations that were necessary for the
development of the lot.
M-19
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-23
Page 5
iv. Departure from the standards of subsection 17.76.040(E)(9) will not be
detrimental to the public safety nor to other property. More specifically, the
proposed retaining walls in excess of the Code allowed height limitations are
solely for access and development to the subject property. Additionally, these
improvements cannot be readily seen or accessed by individuals other than the
applicant. Furthermore, prior to construction, the applicant will be required to
submit his plans to the Fire Department, Building & Safety Division and the City
Geologist for review and approval to ensure no adverse safety impacts will
occur.
Section 4: A Height Variation to allow the proposed residence measuring up to 26’ in
height is warranted because:
A. The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established
by the city by providing signatures from 70% of the total number of landowners within
100’ radius and 25% of the total number of landowners within a 500’ radius of the
subject property.
B. The proposed new structure that is above 16’ 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 since there are none in close
proximity.
C. The proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or promontory, as defined in
the Development Code.
D. The area of a proposed new structure that is above 16’ in height, when considered
exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing
area of another parcel. More specifically, by lowering the building pad elevation, the
applicant is able to construct a two-story residence that is only 5’ above the
preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest elevation. Given that no portions of
the proposed residence exceed 16’ in height, there is no view impairment caused by
the proposed project.
E. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application since there is no view impairment caused by the proposed project.
F. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements, including
setbacks as evidenced in Section No. 2.
G. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character a
evidenced in Section 3(E).
H. The new construction that is above 16’ in height does not result in an unreasonable
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences, because no part
of the proposed residence is above 16’ in height, as measured from existing grade at
the highest point.
M-20
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-23
Page 6
Section 5: The revision to Grading Permit No. 1844 (P.C. Resolution No. 96-41) to
increase the driveway slope from a maximum of 16.7% to 20% can be warranted because the
current Code allows for driveways up to 20% slope.
Section 6: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing, the grounds for
appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, July
13, 2011. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed
timely, the Planning Commission’s decision will be final at 5:30 PM on July 13, 2011.
Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves, with conditions, Case No.
ZON2010-00458, for a request to construct a new 26’ tall, 5,472ft² split-story residence with
2,985yd³ of related grading to a vacant lot located at 5903 Clint Place.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of June 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Lewis, Tetreault, Chairman Tomblin
NOES: Commissioner: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
RECUSALS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Knight
David L. Tomblin
Chairman
Joel Rojas, AICP
Community Development Director and
Secretary of the Planning Commission
M-21
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-23
Page 7
EXHIBIT ‘A’
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. ZON2010-00458
5903 CLINT PLACE
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 contained in this Resolution. Failure
to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this
approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters,
temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an
encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate
zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations.
Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.
4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the
approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve
substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and
conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a
revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and
separate environmental review.
5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in
these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential
development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height,
setback and lot coverage standards.
6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to
revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in
Section 17.86.060 of the City’s Municipal Code.
7. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved
project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the
City’s Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution,
approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration,
a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and
approved by the Director.
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
M-22
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-23
Page 8
date of this Resolution.
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. 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 is contingent upon City Council’s approval of a license agreement,
allowing the applicant to grade within the City’s slope easement. The maximum
grading area shall not exceed the 1072 elevation, as shown on the plans prepared
on June 14, 2011.
No structures (primary or accessory) shall be allowed in the slope easement
except landscaping and a perimeter or safety fence, as required by the Building
and Safety Division.
15. This approval is for a 4,872ft² (2,425ft² upper level & 2,447ft² lower level), split-story
single-family residence, with a 600ft² two-car garage. BUILDING AREA
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer prior to building permit final.
16. This approval is for a total of 2,970yd³ of grading (2,116yd³ of cut and 856yd³ of fill) on
5903 Clint Place and 13yd³ of cut on 5901 Clint Place. The approval also includes the
following retaining walls:
Driveway retaining wall measuring up to 11.5’ in height on 5901 Clint Place;
Upsloping retaining wall measuring up to 14’-6” in height along the southerly
property line; and,
Multiple retaining walls measuring up to 12’-7” in height to accommodate
stairways and access to pool area in the east side yard.
M-23
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-23
Page 9
17. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 26’. BUILDING HEIGHT
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a
FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer, showing the Finished Floor Elevation at 1074.08’.
18. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project
shall maintain a maximum of 52% lot coverage (22% proposed).
19. The approved residence, swimming pool and other accessory structures shall maintain
setbacks of 14’ front (S), 85’ rear (N), 5’ west side and 68’ east side. BUILDING
SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or
civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
20. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from an
existing power pole or other point of connection off-site prior to certificate of occupancy.
21. A minimum 2-car garage shall be provided and maintained in a garage, and a minimum
of two unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway.
22. 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.
M-24