RPVCCA_SR_2010_05_18_09_Appeal_at_2700_San_Ramon_Drive
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: May 18, 2010
Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a New Residence
at 2700½ San Ramon Drive
Subject Property: 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Wolowicz
2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Assistant Planner Kim
4. Public Testimony:
Appellants: Ms. Sara Dokter
Mr. Bill Pratley
Mr. Steve Jensen and Ms. Parvin Jensen
Applicant: John Maloney Architect
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Wolowicz
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
9-1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Staff Coordinator:
RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUN~DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MAY 18,2010 (J L---"
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A
NEW RESIDENCE AT 2700%SAN RAMON DRIVE
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
So Kim,Assistant Planner ~
Adopt Resolution No.2010-_,denying the appeal filed by three separate property owners,thereby
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 3,463ft2 two-story residence at
2700~San Ramon Drive (Case No.ZON2009-00396).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 9,2010,the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan Review and Grading Permit
allowing the construction of a new two-story 3,463ft2 residence and 1,500yd3 0f related grading on a
vacant lot.This project was then appealed to the City Council by three separate neighbors who
believe that the approval is detrimental to public safety and other neighboring properties for the
following reasons:geotechnical issues,vehicular access concerns,and neighborhood compatibility.
As described in the attached P.C.Staff Report (dated February 9,2010)and summarized in the
adopted Planning Commission Resolution (attached),staff and the Planning Commission believe
that these issues have been adequately addressed to warrant approval of the proposed project.
Staff believes that the issues raised by the appellants do not raise any new information to warrant
overturning the Planning Commission's decision.As a result,staff recommends that City Council
deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a new residence at 2700~San
Ramon Drive.
BACKGROUND
On March 23,2003,the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement denied Case No.
ZON2001-00213,a Grading and Site Plan Review applications for 505 cubic yards of grading to
accommodate a new 2,719 square foot,two-story single-family residence,a 470 square foot
detached garage and a 319 square foot detached storage room,for a total proposed structure size
of 3,508 square feet.The denial was appealed by the property owner (Harold Thompson)on April
7,2003.After consideration of the appeal,on July 22,2003 the Planning Commission denied
without prejudice the appeal,thereby upholding the Director's denial.On August 5,2003,the
property owner filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council,but
9-2
indicated that additional information would be collected and submitted as part of the appeal.Thus,
the property owner's appeal was placed on hold until such time as additional information was
submitted by the property owner to move forward with the appeal.In July 2009,after 6 years of
inactivity,the property owner submitted revised plans for consideration at the appeal hearing.On
September 15,2009,the City Council denied the applicant's appeal without prejudice because the
revised project differed substantially from the previously considered project and there has been a six
year time lapse since the original appeal was filed.The effect of this action required the applicant to
submit a new application to pursue the re-designed project.
On October 2,2009,a new application was formally submitted to the City for processing.The
application was presented to the Planning Commission on February 9,2009 with a staff
recommendation of approval.On February 9,2010,the Planning Commission,after conducting a
duly noticed public hearing,approved a Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Case No.ZON2009-
00396),allowing the construction of a new two-story 3,463ft2 residence and 1,500yd3 0f related
grading on a vacant lot (4-2 with Commissioners Knight and Ruttenberg dissenting;Commissioner
Tetreault absent).The approved Planning Commission minutes from the February 9,2010 Planning
Commission hearing are attached.
On February 22,2010,three neighbors represented by an attorney appealed the Planning
Commission's decision requesting that the City Council overturn the approval and deny the
proposed project.On April 12,2010,notice of the May 18th appeal hearing was sent to all property
owners residing within 500'radius of the subject site and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula
News on April 15,2010.In response to the public notice of the appeal hearing,staff has received
one letter in opposition from a neighbor.
DISCUSSION
A detailed discussion of the site and project description,staff's analysis of the required findings
necessary for approval of the project and a discussion of the issues of concern raised by the public
related to the proposed project can be found in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report
(dated February 10,2010).A summary of the proposed project and the Planning Commission's
review of the proposed project is contained below.
Project Description
The current proposal consists of 1,500yd3 of balanced grading to accommodate a new 3,463ft2
residence.Specifically,the grading consists of 750yd3 (225yd3 within the bUilding footprint and
525yd 3 outside of the building footprint)of cut and 750yd 3 of fill (1 yd 3 within the building footprint and
749yd 3 outside the bUilding footprint).The proposed grading within the building footprint primarily
consists of excavation to accommodate new floor area below the existing grade.The proposed
grading outside the building footprint is to accommodate a driveway for access with a 15%slope.
Two separate retaining walls are proposed for access,one adjacent to the driveway (3.5'tall)and
the second (7.8'tall)around the turn-around area for access.An additional retaining wall (7'tall)is
proposed to accommodate a rear patio/courtyard area.The foundation of the proposed new
structure also contains an 8'step with the slope of the lot.
The proposed new residence measures 15'-4"tall,as measured from the average elevation of the
setback line to the ridge line;and 27'-7",as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or
slab meets finished grade to the ridge line.The proposed structure size is 3,463ft2 ,consisting of a
1,723ft2 first floor (partially below existing grade),a 1,340ft2 second floor,and a 400ft2 detached
garage.The proposed area of hardscape,primarily consisting of a driveway is 5,580ft2 on the
9-3
61 ,860ft2 Iot.The proposed lot coverage is 14%of the required minimum of 40%in the designated
RS-2 zoning district.
Planning Commission's Decision
On February 9,2010,the Planning Commission approved the proposed project (Case No.
ZON2009-00396),allowing the construction of a new two-story 3,463ft2 residence and 1,500yd3 0f
related grading on a vacant lot (4-2 with Commissioners Knight and Ruttenberg dissenting;
Commissioner Tetreault absent).The Planning Commission agreed with staff's analysis and
recommendation.However,in response to concerns raised by neighbors that there was not ample
access from San Ramon Drive to the subject property due to existing improvements within the
access easement,the Commission added a condition of approval (no.21)that requires the
applicant to demonstrate that the easement is clear of any structures and physically accessible,prior
to building permit issuance.
In approving the proposed project,the Planning Commission was able to make all of the following
Grading Permit findings:
•The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of
the lot;
•The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect
the visual relationships with,nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring
properties.In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence,this finding shall be
satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building
footprint such that the height of the proposed structure is lower than a structure that
would have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction
(existing)grade;
•The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished
contours are reasonably natural;
•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;
•For new single-family residences,the grading and/or related construction is compatible
with the immediate neighborhood character;
•In new residential tracts,the grading includes provisions for the preservation and
introduction ofplant materials so as to protect slopes form soil erosion and slippage and
minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas;
•The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading
alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside;
•The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation;
•The criteria ofsubsections (E)(1)through (E)(8)are satisfied;The approval is consistent
with the purposes of the Grading Permit;departure from the standards in subsection
(E)(9)will not constitute a grant ofspecial privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity;departure from the standards ofsubsection (E)(9)will not
be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property;notice ofsuch decision shall be
given to the applicant and to all owners ofproperty adjacent to the subject property;and
notice of denial shall be given to only the applicant.
The 2003 project application was denied by the Planning Commission for the following reasons:1)
the distribution of grading did not minimize disturbance to the natural contours and the finished
9-4
contours were not reasonably natural;2)the proposed fill areas were not consistent with and did not
preserve the natural contours nor blend in with the natural topography;3)the proposed design of the
new home was not compatible with the neighborhood;and,4)there was insufficient geotechnical
information pertaining to the stability of the site.In approving the current project,the Planning
Commission felt that the new revised project addressed all of these previous concerns as
summarized below:
Distribution of Grading
The previous project's grading mainly consisted of backfill to elevate the existing grade under the
building footprint and driveway,while the current project's grading is balanced and involves primarily
excavation into the existing slope to lower the existing grade level.Additionally,the proposed fill is
to create slopes adjacent to new structures and retaining walls to blend it with the existing slopes in
an attempt to maintain a visual continuity of the hillside character.
The previously proposed project also included the construction of 13'-0"and 9'-6"tall retaining walls
that created a benching effect on the property.The proposed project only involves a 3.5'tall
retaining wall adjacent to the new access that increases in height to 7'-8"at the turn-around area.
The proposed project also includes a 7'-0"tall retaining wall integrated as part ofthe new residence
to accommodate an octagonal courtyard area.Unlike the previous project,the retaining walls
proposed as part of the pending project will not be readily visible or appear prominent from the
neighboring properties or from the public right-of-way (Palos Verdes Drive East)
Neighborhood Compatibility
The previously denied project incorporated a shed roof design that was not compatible with the
immediate neighborhood.Additionally,due to the proposed 13'tall and 9'-6"tall combination walls,
the resulting appearance of these heights combined with a structure height of 20'-3"to 29'-9"above
created an overall fac;ade that appeared massive and bUlky as viewed from the surrounding area.
The proposed residence uses design elements,materials,and colors that are commonly found in
the immediate neighborhood.Additionally,the proposed residence will not be visible from San
Ramon Drive,although visible from the Palos Verdes Drive East roadway referred to as the
"switchbacks",and from the residences along the rim of the San Ramon Canyon that are located
along Tarapaca Road and Azores Place.The bulk and mass of the proposed structure will not be
any more apparent than other existing homes located at the top of the canyon.Most notably,a large
portion of the first floor will be located below the pre-construction grade.Furthermore,the applicant
has voluntarily lowered the height by 2'-3"to lessen the bulk/mass of the proposed structure.The
numerous articulations proposed through various design features of the new structure results in a
project that is not bulky or massive.
Geotechnical Information Regarding Stability
The location of the previously proposed residence was partially within the Open Space Hazard
district where the City's Code does not allow for new construction of a single-family residence.
Furthermore,the City Geologist acknowledged that the geotechnical report submitted for the
previous application did not include information related to the location ofthe South Shores Landslide
and its affects on the subject property related to slope stability and felt that he needed to see
additional geologic data.
Unlike the previously denied project,the currently proposed residence is entirely within the
9-5
residential zoning district with no portion in the Open Space Hazard district.Additionally,the City
Geologist reviewed the augmented geotechnical reports submitted by the applicant and granted a
conceptual approval.The City Geologist concluded that the stability analysis in the more recently
submitted geotechnical reports addresses all of the previous concerns and is sufficient to verify
suitability of the proposed project in its location.Furthermore,the City Geologist attended the
Planning Commission hearing on February 9,2010 and substantiated that all issues raised during
the previously denied project have been addressed with the proposed project from a geotechnical
perspective.
Appellant's Grounds for Appeal
On February 22,2010,the Planning Commission's approval of the project was appealed by the
following residents on San Ramon Drive:Sara Dokter (2700 San Ramon Dr.),Bill Pratley (2701 San
Ramon Dr.),and Steve &Parvin Jensen (2702 San Ramon Dr.).The appeal letter (dated February
22,2010)states "the ground for appeal is that the approval ofthe application is detrimental to public
safety and other property".The details of the appeal letter are explained below,along with staff's
responses.
1)Geotechnical Concerns
"The application requires grading for the proposed driveway that is located in an open-space hazard
area of the Canyon.As the City's own $9.5 million application to the federal government for the
Roadway Stabilization Project states:[the erosion of San Ramon Canyon has accelerated at an
alarming rate since the 2005 storm events which resulted in a Presidential disaster declaration.
Geologists and engineers conclude that the instability translates into probable roadway failure.
Erosion ofthe bank will cause complete roadway failure ...].The applicant's lot abuts the City's land
for the Roadway Stabilization Project.Appellants anticipate providing further detail of the
geotechnical concerns regarding the grading to the City Council.The significant amount of
disturbance to the existing topography that is contemplated by this application should be examined
in great detail since the Appellants believe such disturbance would be detrimental to public safety
and to other property...The installation ofhard ground surfaces at the site will channelize the water
into the canyon,making an already tenuous drainage condition even worse."
Staff's Response:
Open Space Hazard
Grading for the new driveway is proposed within the Open Space Hazard portion of the
subject property.However,the City's Development Code (§17.32.030.G)allows grading in
the Open Space Hazard zoning district,provided that all Grading permit criteria (§17.76.040)
can be met.As evidenced in the attached P.C.Staff Report and P.C.Resolution No.2010-
04 (dated February 9,2010),the Planning Commission felt that the proposed project,
including the grading within the Open Space Hazard area,met all applicable Grading criteria
to warrant approval.
Grading
Staff believes that the Roadway Stabilization Project referred to in the appeal letter is
referring to the City's proposed San Ramon Canyon stabilization project.While it is correct
that the erosion of San Ramon Canyon has accelerated at an alarming rate,the location of
the increased erosion is approximately 300 feet from the proposed grading area on the
subject property.Furthermore,the City Geologist has reviewed and conceptually approved
the applicant's geotechnical reports which concluded that the stability analysis is sufficient to
9-6
verify suitability of the proposed project in its location.Furthermore,the City Geologist
attended the Planning Commission hearing on February 9,2010 and substantiated that the
grading on the subject property should have no adverse impact on the Tarapaca landslide,
as all issues have been addressed from a geotechnical perspective (see attached February
9,2010 minutes).The City Geologist will be present at the May 18th appeal hearing to
reiterate these points and answer any questions.
Drainage
The drainage issue was previously raised during the February 9th P.C.hearing. As
evidenced in the attached P.C.Minutes (dated February 9,2010),the City Geologistfeltthat
the amount of water that would come down to the San Ramon Canyon streambed from the
proposed project would be very limited and thus would have a negligible effect on the
canyon erosion.He added that as long as the water comes from the subject property only
and is not combined with the water draining from the cul-de-sac;it would not be considered
a significant amount of water that would be placed into the canyon to adversely affect the
existing drainage condition or land movement.
2)Concerns Related to Vehicular Accessibility
"Sale access to the construction site is via a ten foot wide driveway easement,beginning at the end
of the cul-de-sac on San Ramon Drive ...This limited method of access is simply not sufficient for
the extent of construction being contemplated."
Staff's Response:
Staff's Response:
The City Code requires a minimum width of 10'for all driveways leading from the street of
access to a garage or other parking area on a residential parcel (RPVMC §17.02.030.E.6).
Since the proposed plans indicate a 10'wide driveway easement from San Ramon Drive to
the subject property,staff feels that the proposed access is sufficient for the proposed
project.
"Due to the current placement of a utility pole and tree on City property at the entrance to Ms.
Dokter's driveway,entering the driveway to requires a driver to carefully avoid the obstructed
entrance.It is unclear if these items are to be removed prior to construction.In addition,two utility
lines extend across the driveway to Ms.Dokter's residence.Thus,the access road to the
applicant's site is not 'clear to the sky'for safety purposes."
Staff's Response:
Acknowledging this concern,the Planning Commission added a condition of approval that
requires the applicant,prior to bUilding permit issuance to "demonstrate that the 10'
easement leading from the street (San Ramon)to the property (2700~San Ramon)is clear
of any structures and physically accessible."Staff believes that this condition will ensure
that the 10'easement will be clear for access prior to permit issuance for the construction of
the project.To further clarify this issue,staff recommends that a condition of approval be
added (Condition No.21)to clarify that the property owner is responsible for all costs
associated with the needed removal and relocation of anystructures within the public right-
of-way to allow unimpeded access to the property.
9-7
3)Neighborhood Compatibility
"The size of the applicant's proposed residence is also a concern.The 2003 Staff Report indicated
that the proposed 2,494ft2 residence was not designed to be compatible with the neighborhood and
that its bulk and mass did not allow it to blend in with the hillside.The 2009 application seeks
approval for a house that is nearly 50%larger in size,and it is certainly questionable whether its
greater mass can possibly blend-in with the hillside site."
Staff's Response:
The attached Planning Commission staff report (dated February 9,2010)compares the
original project (ZON2001-00213)approved by the Planning Commission on July 22,2003
with the currently proposed project (ZON2009-00396)in detail.More specifically,the
structure size (residence,garage,and detached structures)of the previous project (3,508ft2)
was larger than the proposed project (3,463fF)by 45fF.The previous project involved a
shed roof design that was incompatible with the neighborhood and proposed a new
residence in an area that is partially not suitable for development (Open Space Hazard
zoning district).Additionally,back in 2003,staff and the Planning Commission concluded
that the height of the previously proposed combination walls (13'-0"and 9'-6"in height)in
conjunction with a residence height of 20'-3"and 29'-9"above finished grade,created an
overall fagade that appeared massive and bulky.Furthermore,the previous project involved
a residence and driveway over proposed fill,raising the grade and necessitating tall
combination walls.The Planning Commission determined that the previous project did not
blend in with the hillside nor achieve neighborhood compatibility and therefore denied the
project.
The pending project (3,463ft2 )is 45ft2 smaller in size compared to the previous project
(3,508ft2 )and designed to achieve neighborhood compatibility.In approving the currently
proposed project,the Planning Commission determined that 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.The overall height of the proposed
residence is more than 2'lower than the previous project and the numerous articulations
help the residence appear less bulky or massive.As further detailed in the P .C.Staff Report
and adopted P.C.Resolution No.2010-04,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.
4)Fire Hydrant
"It is not clear whether the installation of the on-site fire hydrant will require the destruction of any
existing driveways or walls for the installation of piping."
Staff's Response:
According to the Fire Department,the property owner would be required to provide an on-
site hydrant with underground connections,which may likely involve temporary activity within
the existing access easement,such as demolition and/or replacement of existing structures.
Since there is a recorded access easement over the abutting neighbor's property which the
property owner intends to utilize,any issues related to the removal and/or relocation of
existing improvements within the easement must be resolved civilly between the applicant
9-8
and the abutting property owner,who is encumbered by the access easement.
There are also improvements within the public right-of-way that may impede the easement
access.As noted earlier,a condition of approval is proposed to be added which would
make the applicant responsible for any costs associated with the removal,relocation,or
replacement of any existing facilities or structures in the public right-of-way.
5)CC&R's
"The Declaration of Covenants,Conditions,and Restrictions for the property require that aI/utilities
serving the parcel are to be underground,from the northwesterly corner of the parcel.It is unclear
from the application if this restriction of the CC&R's will be fol/owed by the applicant."
Staff's Response:
The City does not enforce CC&R's,as CC&R's are private agreements that are enforced
through a civil court action.Nevertheless,the Municipal Code requires all utility lines
installed to serve new construction be placed underground from an existing power pole or
other point of connection off-site (RPVMC §17 .54.020).As such,the proposed project will
be required to install utility lines between the closest off-site existing power pole or point of
connection to the new residence.
6)Construction Hours
"Since the construction activity will occur so close to Ms.Dokter's residence,it is requested that
General Condition No.10 be amended so that any construction activity does not commence until
after 8:00 am."
Staff's Response:
The Municipal Code allows construction activities between the hours of7am to 7pm,Monday
through Saturday (RPVMC 17.56.020.8),regardless of the proximity of adjacent residences
or the nature of the proposed project.As such,staff feels that imposing more stringent
hours of construction is not warranted.
7)Remand the Proposed Project to the Planning Commission
'J!\s a consequence of the proposed dangers inherent in this application,the City Council should
deny the application.Alternatively,the application should be returned to the Planning Commission
to resolve the outstanding issues."
Staff's Response:
Staff believes that no new information has been submitted by the appellant to warrant overturning
the Planning Commission's decision and therefore recommends that the City Council uphold the
Planning Commission's decision and deny this appeal.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Since the Planning Commission's decision on the proposed project,staff received one email in
opposition (refer to attached email dated March 20th ).The email raises the following three issues:
9-9
reactivation of South Shores landslide,rezoning of the subject property,and suspending permit
review.Staff has addressed these issues in detail below.
a)Reactivation of South Shores landslide
In response to the question if the rapid erosion of the Tarapaca Canyon stimulated movement of the
South Shores landslide,the answer is no.According to the Landslide Inventory map of the Palos
Verdes Peninsula of Los Angeles County,South Shores landslide is classified as a dormant old
landslide area.The City Geologist also confirmed that this landslide is not active and that the
proposed development will have no impacts upon this landslide.
b)Rezoning of 2700%San Ramon Drive
The email requests that the City rezone the subject property as open space hazard (OH)in its
entirety and compensate the property owner.While the City Council has the authority to initiate a
zone change,given that the geological review demonstrates that the subject site is suitable for
development,staff does not recommend that City Council move forward with this request.
c)Suspend Permit Review
The email requests that the pending permit review be suspended while the Roadway Stabilization
Project is pending.As discussed above,the City's Senior Engineer working on the City's San
Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project believes that there is no connection between the Roadway
Stabilization Project and the pending application.As such,staff feels that this request is not
warranted.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts related to this project.If the City Council decides to overturn the
Planning Commission's decision,the appellants are entitled to a full refund of the appeal fee
($2,255.00).
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation,the alternatives available for the City Council's consideration
include:
1.Identify any issues of concern and direct the applicant to re-design and continue the item to a
date certain.
2.Approve the appeal and direct staff return to the City Council with a revised Resolution at a date
certain.
Attachments:
•C.C.Resolution No.2010-_
•Appeal Letter
•Public Correspondence
•P.C.Minutes (February 9,2010)
•P.C.Resolution No.2010-04
•P.C.Staff Report (February 9,2010)
9-10
RESOLUTION NO.2010-
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.("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 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,3,463fF 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.
Resolution No.2010-
Page 1 of 8
9-11
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-
Page 2 of 8
9-12
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 fac;ade treatments,structure height,open
space between structures,roof design,the apparent bulk or mass of the structure,number of
stories,and building materials;and 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 (Le.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 (Le.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-
Page 3 of 8
9-13
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.
Mayor
Attest:
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-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-
Page 4 of 8
9-14
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-
Page 5 of 8
9-15
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 (225yd 3 within the building footprint &525yd3 outside);
ii.750yd3 of fill (1yd3 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,1,340fF 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-
Page 6 of 8
9-16
Side (E) 5’-0” (330’ proposed)
Rear 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 (2700½ 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.
9-17
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 %"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-
Page 8 of 8
9-18
PHONE (310)543-4623
HAND DELIVERED
DAVID R.BENCE
ATIORNEY AT LAW
21515 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD,SUITE 820
TORRANCE,CALIFORNIA 90503
February 22,2010
RECEIVED
FEB 22 2010
ifllANN!NG,BUiLD!NG AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
FAX (310)543-4464
Joel Rojas
Director of Planning,Building
And Code Enforcement
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
RE:Case No.ZON2009-00396;
2700 %San Ramon Drive,RPV
Dear Mr.Rojas:
1.Notice of Appeal.This letter shall give notice of
appeal of the Planning Commission action taken February 9.2010,
adopting Resolution No.2010-04,approving a Site Plan review and
grading Permit application (Case NO.2009-00396).Enclosed
herein is the appeal fee of $2,255.00.
2.Appellants.My clients who are jointly making this
appeal to the City Council are:
lvls.Sara Dokter
2700 San Ramon Dr.
RPV,CA 90275
Mr.Bill Pratley
2701 San Ramon Dr.
RPV,90275
Mr.Steve Jensen
Ms.Parvin Jensen
2702 San Ramon Dr.
RPV,CA 90275
3.Grounds for Appeal.The ground for the appeal is that
approval of the application is detrimental to public safety and
other property.
A.Relevant History.The applicant's lot apparently was
created via a lot split in the early 1960's,when the area was
governed by Los Angeles County.The applicant's lot contains no
frontage on San Ramon Drive.The only access to the applicant's
lot is via Ms.Dokter's driveway,on a ten foot wide access
easement to the site.
310-01.1.085
9-19
Mr,Joel Rojas
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
February 22,2010
Page 2
In 2003,the applicant applied for permission to build a
2494 sq,ft.residence on the lot,requiring 505 cubic yards of
grading,His application was denied by RPV staff and unanimously
denied by the Planning Commission on the grounds that approval of
the grading application could be detrimental to the public safety
and to other property in the area.The applicant has now filed a
new application,seeking to construct a 3463 sq.ft,house,and
requesting 1500 cubic yards of grading,
B,Geotechnical Concerns,The applicant's lot overlooks
San Ramon Canyon,The lot slopes down in an easterly and
southerly direction into San Ramon Canyon.
The application requires grading for the proposed
driveway that is located in an open-space hazard area of the
Canyon,As the City's own $9.5 million application to the
federal government for the Roadway Stabilization Project states:
"The erosion of San Ramon Canyon has accelerated at an alarming
rate since the 2005 storm events which resulted in a Presidential
disaster declaration,Geologists and engineers conclude that the
instability translates into probable roadway failure,Erosion of
the bank will cause complete roadway failure,,,"The
applicant's lot abuts the City's land for the Roadway
Stabilization Project,Appellants anticipate providing further
detail of the geotechnical concerns regarding the grading to the
City Council,The significant amount of disturbance to the
existing topography that is contemplated by this application
should be examined in great detail since the Appellants believe
such disturbance would be detrimental to public safety and to
other property.
In addition to the risk associated with the grading in
the open-space hazard zone,there is the additional concern of
drainage from the site both during and after construction.It
would appear that all water from the site would drain easterly
into San Ramon Canyon.The applicant is permitted under the
General Conditions to utilize water for dust control,which will
increase water flow into the canyon,The installation of hard
ground surfaces at the site will channelize the water into the
canyon,making an already tenuous drainage condition even worse,
C.Safety Concerns.Sole access to the construction site
is via a ten foot wide driveway easement,beginning at the end of
the cul-de-sac on San Ramon Drive,All construction equipment
would travel within about two feet of Ms,Dokter's residence
throughout the period of construction,The vehicles then have to
make a sharp right turn over the open-space hazard area
overlooking the canyon,This limited method of access is simply
not sufficient for the extent of construction being contemplated,
310-01.1085
9-20
Mr.Joel Rojas
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
February 22,2010
Page 3
Since the driveway is the only roadway access to the
applicant's lot,any complete obstruction on the driveway would
prevent any access,even emergency vehicle access,to the
applicant's lot.There is no alternative access to the site.
Due to the current placement of a utility pole and tree
on City property at the entrance to Ms.Dokter's driveway,
entering the driveway requires a driver to carefully avoid the
obstructed entrance.It is unclear if these items are to be
removed prior to construction.
In addition,two utility lines extend across the driveway
to Ms.Dokter's residence.Thus,the access road to the
applicant's site is not 'clear to the sky'for safety purposes,
D.Specific Concerns.The size of the applicant's
proposed residence is also a concern.The 2003 Staff Report
indicated that the proposed 2494 sq.ft.residence was not
designed to be compatible with the neighborhood and that its bulk
and mass did not allow it to blend in with the hillside.The
2009 application seeks approval for a house that is nearly 50%
larger in size,and it is certainly questionable whether its
greater mass can possibly blend-in with the hillside site.
It is not clear whether the installation of the on-site
fire hydrant (Fire Condition No.33)will require the destruction
of any existing driveways or walls for the installation of
piping.
The Declaration of Covenants,Conditions,and Restrictions
for the property require that all utilities serving the parcel
are to be underground,from the northwesterly corner of the
parcel.It is unclear from the application if this restriction
of the CC&R's will be followed by the applicant.
Since the construction activity will occur so close to
Ms.Dokter's residence,it is requested that General Condition
No.10 be amended so that any construction activity does not
commence until after 8:00 am.
As a consequence of the proposed dangers inherent in this
application,the City Council should deny the application.
Alternatively,the application should be returned to the Planning
Commission to resolve the outstanding issues.
310-01.1085
9-21
Mr.Joel Rojas
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
February 22,2010
Page 4
It is respectfully requested that the hearing on this
appeal not be set for the period March 28-April 12,2010,when my
client,Ms.Sara Dokter,will not be available to attend.I
greatly appreciate your cooperation regarding this matter,
Sincerely,
~~
David R.Bence
cc:So Kim,Ass't Planner
Sara Dokter
Parvin Jensen
Bill Pratley
John Maloney
Harold R.Thompson,Jr.
310-01.1085
9-22
-----Original Message-----
From:radlsmith@cox.net [Pla.UtQ:mdIsmith@cQx.net]
Sent:Saturday,March 20,2010 10:52 AM
To:stevew@rpv.com;tom.long@rpv.com;Douglas.Stern@rpv.com;
Anthony.Misetich@rpv.com;Brian.Campbell@rpv.com;citymanager@rpv.com;
planning@rpv.com;buildingsafety@rpv.com;publicworks@rpv.com;
oversight@rpv.com;mbrophy@marymountpv.edu
Subject:Rezoning Vacant Property (Maloney)at the end of San Ramon Drive
TO:City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council members:Mayor Stefan Wolowicz;
Mayor Pro Tern Thomas D.Long;Councilmembers Anthony M.Misetich,Brian
Campbell,Douglas W.Stern;City Manager Carolyn Lehr,Deputy City Manager
Carolynn Petru;Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Department;Building
and Safety Department;Ray Holland,Director of Public Works;Oversight
Committee for the Water Quality and Flood Protection;
Dr.Michael Brophy,President,Marymount College
CC:Interested property owners
FROM:Diane Smith,2704 San Ramon Drive,RPV 90275 (310)547-3856
Date:March 20,2010
Subject:Rezoning Vacant Property (Maloney)at the end of San Ramon
Drive
We are concerned about the failing walls of Tarapaca Canyon and in
particular the new failing wall of the San Ramon Drive side of the Canyon at
the switchbacks.
Has the rapid erosion of the Tarapaca Canyon stimulated movement of the
South Shores Landslide?
We appreciate your recent hiring of consultants to evaluate the canyon
condition to determine the most feasible way to solve the problem.
While the consultants are making their evaluation,we request the vacant
parcel at the end of our street be rezoned open space and the property owner
compensated for his out-of-pocket expenses for this inconvenience.
Alternatively, we urge the City to immediately suspend further permit review
pending the City'S Consultants'determination of the extent of the problem.
Time is of the essence since the planning department is presently
considering permits for development,construction and disruption of the land
at the end of San Ramon Drive which,together with Marymount College,is at
the top ofthe Southshores Landslide.
Thank you.
9-23
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.Grading Permit &Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON2009·00396):2700 %San
Ramon Drive
Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report,giving a brief history of the project and
explaining the differences between the original project and the new project that is before
the Commission.As discussed in the staff report,she explained the three main reasons
the previous project was denied,and how staff feels this new project mitigates these
concerns.She stated that staff believes the proposed project addresses all of the
previous concerns and all required findings can be made.Therefore staff is
recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report.
Commissioner Perestam noted his concern with the easement for the applicant to
access their proposed driveway.He did not think it appeared that there was ample
access at this time.
Assistant Planner Kim acknowledged that currently there is not a clear 10 foot
easement,as either one or both of the abutting neighbors have built structures in that
easement.
Director Rojas added that the applicant has demonstrated that he has an easement
giving him access to the street.He stated that a condition of approval can be added
that the applicant demonstrate how he will access the driveway within the easement
before submitting plans to plan check or before issuance of the building permit.
Commissioner Knight noted in staff's pictures that the flags on the silhouette appear to
be sagging,and asked staff if they did their view analysis before the flags started to sag.
Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff did their analysis after the flags began to sag,
however she noted that the stakes in the silhouette are at the accurate height and have
been certified.She explained that once the pictures were taken staff was able to draw a
line straight across from one stake to another to aid in the view analysis.
Commissioner Knight asked the City Geologist if he felt the necessary data has been
submitted,as opposed to the data that was submitted with the previous project.
Mr.Lancaster answered that his concerns have been addressed from a geotechnical
perspective.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 9,2010
Page 8
9-24
Commissioner Knight asked Mr.Lancaster if a contributing factor to the instability of
Tarapaca Landslide would be the streambed at the bottom of the canyon.
Mr.Lancaster answered that the streambed would be a contributing factor.He gave a
brief description of the Tarapaca,San Ramon,and South Shores Landslides,noting
that the South Shores Landslide is considered inactive.
Commissioner Knight noted that this project will take its hardscape runoff into a pipe
and direct that runoff straight down into the streambed.He asked Mr.Lancaster if any
analysis was done on how much this will contributed to the erosion of the streambed
and possibly exacerbate the existing situation.
Mr.Lancaster answered that such an analysis has not been done,however he felt that
the amount of water that would come down to the streambed from this one house would
most likely be very limited.He added that as long as the water comes from this
property only and is not adding to it from the cul-de-sac it would not be considered a
significant amount of water that would be placed into the canyon.
Commissioner Knight noted a head scarp identified by Geosyntec in 2002 that appears
to run right along the area where the house is proposed to be built.He asked Mr.
Lancaster if he had looked at that situation.
Mr.Lancaster explained that it has been looked at from the standpoint of stability and
the applicant's geologist has demonstrated that there is stability at this point.He added
that the head scarp of a landslide is material that has not moved.
Commissioner Knight referred to a letter received that indicated the presence of
bentonite on the property,and asked Mr.Lancaster to elaborate.
Mr.Lancaster explained that in the borings there were two bentonite beds that were
located.He stated that there is a condition of approval that when the caissons are
drilled an engineering geologist is to go in the hole,map the area,and if there is
bentonite observed this is to be put back into the stability analysis to make sure these
caissons will sufficiently take care of that.
Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that Mr.Lancaster has read many reports and seen
geologic information for this property over the years and asked if there is any
information that may have been in earlier reports that may be contradictory or not
included in this study.
Mr.Lancaster could not recall any such information.He explained that what he has
seen and questions he has asked in terms of stability is information that he is aware of
because of his years of experience with this property,that the consultant is not aware
of,and he has asked the consultant to include and analyze this information.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 9,2010
Page 9
9-25
Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if there is anything going on with this proposed
residence that may affect the stability of the existing residences.
Mr.Lancaster answered that the geotechnical consultant has made the determination
that this project will not affect the stability of the existing residences.
Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing.
John Maloney (architect)stated that he will be available to answer questions,but would
like to speak last.
Sara Dokter (2700 San Ramon Drive)asked that the Planning Commission deny this
request for a new home.She stated that the land is very unstable,and noted that she
has lived in her home for 46 years and has seen a lot of history and activity at the site.
She noted that the geologists may feel it is safe to build,but also use terms such as
unlikely under normal situations and if maintained in accordance to recommendations.
She also did not think geologist knew much about the areas that have already slid and
why and what will slide next.She stated that if this project is approved she will ask the
City,the geologist,and the builder to indemnify her property and the surrounding
properties.
Vice Chairman Gerstner asked Ms.Dokter if she felt anything on her property was
sliding or moving or was unsafe.
Ms.Dokter answered that the soil on her hillside is very fragile and she does not walk
down that hillside because of that.She stated that there have never been any failures
on her property
Laura McSherry (2714 San Ramon Drive)stated that the property should be viewed
from the switchback on Palos Verdes Drive East to see the erosion that has taken
place.She was also very concerned with the geology and questioned how long it will
take to build this proposed home.
Sam Van Wagner (2763 San Ramon Drive)stated that this revised project now triples
the amount of grading from the originally proposed project.He felt this project should
once again be denied because of the land stability questions in spite of the conditional
clearance given by the city geologist.He read from the city geologist's clearance of the
project,noting that there is language that this review should not be considered as a
certification,approval,or acceptance of the consultant's work,or as an acceptance of
liability.He stressed that this is not a NIMBY issue and it should interest all of the
citizens of the City,as it could impact citywide resources.He stated that the safety of
San Ramon Canyon,the surrounding neighborhoods,or the limited resources of the
City cannot be jeopardized by approving this project.
Bill Pratley stated he is one of the owners of the wall that goes along the easement,and
he stated he has a survey that shows the wall is on the property line.He stated he was
Planning Commission Minutes
February 9,2010
Page 10
9-26
surprised and disappointed that the City would approve a 10 foot easement,as the
driveway is very narrow and steep.He supported Mr.Van Wagner's comments and
added that he hoped the Commission would not make a decision at this meeting
because of all that is going on in this area.He also had concerns about the geologic
aspects and uncertainty of the lot.
Commissioner Perestam asked Mr.Pratley if he would be affected by the proposed
retaining walls.
Mr.Pratley looked at a plan of the project and was not able to determine the impact of
the walls.He was concerned that he will get headlights into his backyard and home as
a result of the proposed driveway and parking on the property.
Gregory Lash (2829 San Ramon Drive)stated he has sympathy for the applicant,
however nothing they do can guarantee that the canyon won't slide or will indemnity the
nearby homes.He stated that the Tarapaca and San Ramon landslides are two of the
biggest issues within the City.
Daniel Bernstein (2817 San Ramon Drive)stated that he has concerned about the
moving large quantities of dirt in this vicinity and how it will affect the landslide.He
pointed out the troubles with the landslide at Ocean Trails and the landslide at the
Crenshaw Boulevard extension,both approved by geologist.
Mark Matthews stated that approving this project is much too risky.He stated that is
only common sense that this canyon is moving.He was very sympathetic with respect
to Ms.Dokter and how the construction will affect her and her property.He questioned
what will happen if this area is hit with EI Ninos several years in a row.
Holly Cain was very concerned with the proposed project and the potential problems it
could cause that would affect the City as a whole.She explained that she has no
personal stake in this,only that she is concerned for the City.
John Maloney (architect)stated the owner has followed all of the rules and gone out of
his way to make sure this proposed house will be to code.He added that the owner
certainly would not put his lifetime investment into a house if he thought it would end up
going down the canyon.He did not feel a house on caissons pinned to bedrock was the
type of structure that would trigger a landslide.He also pointed out that in working
closely with the Fire Department,a 240 foot long fireproof fence will be built on the
property and a turnaround access will be provided for the fire trucks.Further,the owner
will be adding a fire hydrant at his own expense.He stated that there can be a lot of
speculation regarding the landslides,but the fact is that this site has been proven to be
safe and the applicant should be allowed to build on it.
Commissioner Knight asked Mr.Maloney where the construction trash would be located
and stored.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 9,2010
Page 119-27
Mr.Maloney explained that he will develop a plan for staging,construction debris,and
parking.He stated that his main concern is to make it a safe construction site with the
least amount of disruption to the neighbors.
Commissioner Perestam asked Mr.Maloney to address the 10 foot access at the curb.
Mr.Maloney understood that there are some areas of the easement that have probably
been built over and will have to be adjusted.He stated that he will work with the
neighbors to ensure the adjustments are done correctly and with the least disturbance
as possible.
Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Knight asked staff if they had considered the issue of headlights on this
property and how they would affect the adjoining neighbors.
Assistant Planner Kim answered that was not part of staff's analysis.
Commissioner Ruttenberg commented that while none of the speakers actually said it,
he felt that they would be against anything being built on this lot.He noted that the City
has zoned the lot RS-2 and asked staff if the City therefore has to allow some building
on the lot.
Director Rojas answered that this is a legal lot zoned residential and the City has to
allow some development on the lot.
Commissioner Knight asked Mr.Lancaster if he checked the landscape plans in terms
of water usage.
Mr.Lancaster answered that he has not seen the landscape plan.
Commissioner Knight asked Mr.Lancaster if he would be concerned with a landscape
plan that shows a lot of sprinklers for the landscaping.
Mr.Lancaster answered that anywhere in the City he would recommend against adding
water to a sloped area.He prefers natural vegetation and minimal watering whenever
possible.
Commission Knight asked staff if they have reviewed a landscape plan.
Assistant Planner Kim referred to the green bUilding checklist submitted by the
applicant,and noted that drought tolerant plants are indicated for the area.
Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to approve this project as recommended by staff
with the added condition that the applicant demonstrate to the City that they have
Planning Commission Minutes
February 9,2010
Page 129-28
a 10-foot access to the easement prior to the issuance of building permits,
seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg.
Commissioner Knight stated he would like an added condition that if the Director
determines it is needed,the applicant provide some vegetation along a portion of the
property that will screen the headlights from the adjacent property.
Commissioner Perestam had the same concern but did not think vegetation would
necessarily be sufficient.He suggested changing the wording to "some type of barrier".
Vice Chairman Gerstner was concerned that there was not enough space on the
applicant's property to add such a barrier.He noted that there really isn't a city code
that specifies that the neighbor's headlights cannot shine onto a neighboring property.
He felt that the adjacent neighbor may be able to mitigate the problem himself if he felt it
was a serious enough problem.
Chairman Lewis re-opened the public hearing.
Mr.Maloney explained that the driveway is at an angle,and as a car is turning that
particular area where it faces the neighbor's house the headlights will be shooting their
light up into the air.
Commissioner Knight suggested conditioning it so that if it is determined by the Director
that the headlights create a problem for the neighboring property then mitigation
measures will be needed.
Director Rojas stated that if the Commission wants this condition he would like to see
language that addresses the timing of this condition,as he did not think the Commission
was envisioning the neighbor making a complaint about headlights two years after the
project is completed.
Chairman Lewis agreed with the Vice Chairman's philosophy that the burden is on the
adjacent property owner to protect their privacy.
Commissioner Knight moved to amend the motion to include a condition that an
analysis be conducted by staff as to whether or not any mitigation from
headlights will be necessary for the adjacent property,seconded by
Commissioner Perestam.
Director Rojas reviewed the grading plan and confirmed that it appears that at the point
where a car will be facing the neighboring house the car will be at a 15 percent grade
and most likely pointing up in the air.
With that information,Commissioner Knight withdrew his amendment motion.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 9,2010
Page 139-29
Commissioner Knight referred to condition Nos.10 and 24 which refer to idling,and
suggested adding language that the trucks and equipment can not be idling in the
easement.
The Commissioners supported that modification.
Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if there was any reason access to this property could
be achieved from Palos Verdes Drive East.
Director Rojas answered that the area of access would go through the city preserve,
and no building is allowed in the preserve.In addition,the grade differences would
make the engineering very difficult and costly to the applicant.
Commissioner Knight discussed the bulk and mass of the house,noting that this is a lot
of house to put on this lot.
Chairman Lewis stated that he was not able to make the neighborhood compatibility
findings necessary to approve the project.
The motion to adopt P.C.Resolution 2010-04 thereby approving the requested
application as amended was approved,(4-2)with Commissioner Knight and
Chairman Lewis dissenting.
Height Variation Revision (Case No.ZON2007 m 00209}:32415 1'!ld:IUW!IU~Drive
Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report,explaining the scope of the project
and specifically the request for the revision to the previously approved height variation.
He that at the original meeting a neighbor was against the proposed height
variation,however this same neighbor supports the proposed revision the balcony.
He stated that balcony addition wi!!not exceed thirteen feet in height and
therefore not cause any view impairments,balcony addition be
compatible the neighborhood,and not unreasonably infringe on the neighbor's
privacy staff ali of the required findings can be made in order to approve
the project
""tr,""n,ht rrHu,':>rn and there is no
rnrnrnlCQlr,n aOOifov'e the project.
Duhovic project
started.
once was
Planning Commission Minutes
February 9,2010
Page 149-30
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2010-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A SITE PLAN REIVEW AND
GRADING PERMIT,TO CONDUCT 1,500YD3 OF GRADING FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 27'-7"TALL,3,463FP TWO-STORY
RESIDENCE,AND THREE SEPARATE RETAINING WALLS AT 2700%
SAN RAMON.
WHEREAS,on December 21,2001,a Site Plan Review application (ZON2001-00213)
was submitted,requesting approval to conduct 505 cubic yards of grading to accommodate a
new 3,508ft2 two-story residence;and,
WHEREAS,on March 23,2003,the Director of Planning,Building and Code
Enforcement denied this application based on the following reasons:the distribution of grading
does not minimize disturbance to the natural contours and the finished contours are not
reasonably natural;the proposed fill are not consistent with and do not preserve the natural
contours nor blend in with the natural topography;the proposed design of the new home is not
compatible with the neighborhood;and insufficient geotechnical information pertaining to the
stability of the site;and
WHEREAS,on April 7,2003,the property owner (Harold Thompson)appealed the
Director's decision to the Planning Commission;and,
WHEREAS,on July 22,2003 the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission
Resolution No.2003-32,denying without prejudice the appeal,thereby upholding the Director's
decision of denial;and,
WHEREAS,on August 5,2003,the property owner filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council,but indicated that additional information would be
collected and submitted as part of the appeal;and,
WHEREAS,on July 23,2009,the property owner submitted a re-designed project in an
attempt to address the issues raised in denying the project;and,
WHEREAS,on September 15,2009,the City Council denied the appeal without
prejudice and directed staff to credit the paid appeal fee towards the new application fee
because the revised project differed substantially from the previously considered project and
time lapse of six-years since the original appeal;and,
WHEREAS,on October 2,2009,a new application was submitted (Site Plan Review,
and Grading Permit),requesting to conduct 1,500 yd 3 grading to accommodate a new two-story
3,463ft2 residence;and,
WHEREAS,on October 8,2009,the project was deemed incomplete based on missing
information;and,
WHEREAS,on December 18,2009,the project was deemed complete after subsequent
reviews;and,
P.C.Resolution No.2010-04
Page 1
9-31
WHEREAS,a notice was published on December 31,2009,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.("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 the Site Plan Review and Grading
Permit will have a significant effect on the environment and,therefore,the project has been
found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303 -New Construction);and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 9,
2010,at which time aU 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:That the proposed project is a request to 1)construct a 27'-7"tall,3,463ft2
two-story residence;2)conduct1.,500yd3 0f grading;.and 3)construct a 3.5'and a 7.8'tall
retaining waUaqjacent to the new driveway,and a 7'tall retaining wall integrated into the
residence to accommodate a rear patio-courtyard on a vacant lot.
Section 2: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 ofthe lot.
Section 3:That the Grading Permit is warranted.because the proposed grading
and/or related construction does not significantly adversely <affecUhe visual relationships with,
nor the viewsfromlheviewingarea 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 buUdingpad resuUsinlowering the overall ridge of the new structure that
would have higher If it was built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction
grade.
Section 4: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 5: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.
P.C.Resolution No.2010-04
Page 2
9-32
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.
Section 6: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 fayade 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 7:That the Grading Permit is warranted because the grading would not
cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wi·ldlife habitat
through removal of vegetation as none exist on the subject property.
Section 8: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:
a)The criteria of subsections (E)1 through (E)8 are satisfied;
b)The approval is consistent with the purposes of the Grading permit;
c)Departure from the standards in subsection (E)9 will not constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity;and,
d)Departure from the standards of subsection (E)9 will not be detrimental to the public
safety nor to other property.
Additionally,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 (Le.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
P.C.Resolution No.2010-04
Page 3
9-33
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 9:That the Site Plan Review is warranted because the single-story portions
and other accessory structures of the proposed project (Le.trellis,skylight,and solar panels)
that are not integral part of the proposed two-story structure comply with the RS-2 development
standards.
Section 10:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council.The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and
any specific action being requested by the appellant.Any appeal letter must be filed within
fifteen (15)calendar days of the date of this decision,or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday,February
24,2010.A $2,255.00 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 February 24,2010.
Section 11: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,a Site Plan Review and
Grading Permit for 1,500yd3 of grading and the construction of a new 27'-7"tall,3,463ft2 two-
story residence (Case No.ZON2009-00396).
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of February 2010,by the following vote:
AYES:Commissioners Perestam,Ruttenberg,Tomblin,Vice Chairman Gerstner
NOES:Commissioner Knight,Chairman Lewis
ABSTENTIONS:None
RECUSALS:None
ABSENT:Commissioner Tetreault ~.
rey L .c:=
P.C.Resolution No.2010-04
Page 4
9-34
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 express.ly 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.
P.C.Resolution No.2010-04
Page 5
9-35
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 (225yd 3 within the building footprint &525yd3 outside);
ii.750yd3 offill (1yd3 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.1,723ftz first floor,1,340ft2 second floor,and 40002 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 0!J)
20'-0"(20'proposed to the garage,45'proposed from SFR)
5'_0"(20'proposed)
P.C.Resolution No.2010-04
Page 6
9-36
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 elev~tion 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 th~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 that the 10'easement leading from the street (San
Ramon)to the property (2700'l~San Ramon)is clear of any structures and physically
accessible.
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.
25.The gradient of Fire Department vehicle access roads shall not exceed 15%unless
approved by the Chief.
P.C.Resolution No.2010-04
Page 7
9-37
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.
P.C.Resolution No.2010-04
Page 8
9-38
CllY OF
STAFF PLANNING,BUILDING,&CODE ENFORCEMENT
REPORT
DATE:FEBRUARY 9,2010
PROJECT
ADDRESS:2700 Y,SAN RAMON DRIVE
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING C MI ION
COMMUNITY 0 MENT
DIRECTOR
TO:
SUBJECT:SITE PLAN REVIEW AND GRADING
PERMIT (CASE NO,ZON2009-00396)
FROM:
APPLICANT:JOHN MALONEY ARCHITECT
3318 SHERBOURNE DRIVE
CULVER CITY,CA 90232
(310)204-4749
LANDOWNER:HAROLD THOMPSON
.t\STAFF SO KIM ~
'--T'-'H-'-0'-'M.ccA-'-S'-'-'-G-'-U.:..:ID'-'E=-'-PA'--'--G"'E-'-8"'23c:.:'_F-..:-6__---.J COO RDINATOR:ASSISTANT PLAN NER
REQUESTED ACTION:A REQUEST TO 1)CONSTRUCT A 27'-7"TALL,3,463FT'TWO-STORY RESIDENCE;
2)CONDUCT 1,500YD'OF GRADING;3)CONSTRUCT 3.5'TALL AND 7.8'TALL RETAINING WALLS
ADJACENT TO THE NEW DRIVEWAY;AND 4)CONSTRUCT A 7'TALL RETAINING WALL INTEGRATED INTO
THE RESIDENCE TO ACCOMMODATE A REAR PATlO·COURTYARD.
RECOMMENDATION:ADOPT P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2010-_;THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
THE REQUESTED SITE PLAN REVIEW AND GRADING PERMIT (ZON2009-00396).
REFERENCES:
ZONING:RS-2 (RESIDENTIAL)&OH (OPEN SPACE HAZARD)
LAND USE:VACANT
CODE SECTIONS:17.02,17.32,17.48,17.70,17.76,17.78,17.80,17.86,&17.96
GENERAL PLAN:RESIDENTIAL
TRAILS PLAN:NONE
SPECIFIC PLAN:NONE
CEQA:CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15303 -NEW CONSTRUCTION)
30940 HAWfHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VErmES,CA 90275-5391
PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT (3101544·5228 1 BUILDING (3101265·7800 1 DEPT.FAX (3101544·52931 E-MAIL PLANNING@RPYCOM9-39
Page 2
ACTION DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 16, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500’ OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE
BACKGROUND
On December 21, 2001, a Site Plan Review application (ZON2001-00213) was submitted,
requesting approval to conduct 505 cubic yards of grading to accommodate a new 3,508ft² two-
story residence. On March 23, 2003, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
denied this application based on the following reasons: 1) the distribution of grading does not
minimize disturbance to the natural contours and the finished contours are not reasonably
natural; 2) the proposed fill areas are not consistent with and do not preserve the natural
contours nor blend in with the natural topography; 3) the proposed design of the new home is
not compatible with the neighborhood; and, 4) insufficient geotechnical information pertaining to
the stability of the site.
The denial was appealed by the property owner (Harold Thompson) on April 7, 2003. On July
22, 2003 the Planning Commission was not able to make the required Grading Permit and Site
Plan Review findings and denied the appeal without prejudice, thereby upholding the Director’s
decision of denial (see attached P.C. Resolution No. 2003-32 & Minutes). On August 5, 2003,
the property owner filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council,
but indicated that additional information would be collected and submitted as part of the appeal.
Thus, the property owner’s appeal was placed on hold until such time as additional information
was submitted by the property owner to move forward with the appeal. On July 23, 2009, the
property owner submitted a re-designed project in an attempt to address the issues raised in
denying the project. On September 15, 2009, the City Council denied the applicant’s appeal
without prejudice because the revised project differed substantially from the previously
considered project and there has been a six year time lapse since the original appeal was filed.
The effect of this action required the applicant to submit a new application to pursue the re-
designed project. Thus, the City Council directed staff to credit the paid appeal fee towards the
new application fee
On October 2, 2009, a new application was submitted (Site Plan Review, and Grading Permit),
requesting to conduct 1,500 yd³ grading to accommodate a new two-story 3,463ft² residence.
Upon initial review, staff deemed the project incomplete on October 8, 2009 based on missing
information. After subsequent reviews, staff deemed the project complete on December 18,
2009. On December 21, 2009, 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
December 31, 2009. During the comment period, staff received sixteen letters in opposition
from ten separate neighbors. These letters are addressed in detail under the ‘Additional
Information’ section of this staff report.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property measures approximately 1.42-acres (61,860ft²) and is located at the end of
the San Ramon Drive cul-de-sac. Although it was originally a larger lot that was part of Tract
No. 25051 recorded on November 5, 1959, the subject property was created by deed under
authority of Los Angeles County on May 7, 1963. The property is a downsloping lot accessed
from San Ramon Drive via a 10’ wide easement that traverses the “pole” of the adjacent flag-lot
property.
9-40
Page 3
The subject property is a vacant lot, zoned as RS-2 (Residential) and OH (Open Space
Hazard). The configuration of the lot is unusual, as it is not a standard rectangular lot or a
typical flag-lot.
The parcel slopes down in an easterly and southerly direction into San Ramon Canyon.
Generally, the eastern half of the property contains an Open Space Hazard (OH) zoning
designation and the western portion of the parcel is zoned Residential (RS-2).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The revised proposal consists of 1,500yd³ of balanced grading to accommodate a new 3,463ft²
residence. Specifically, the grading consists of 750yd³ (225yd³ within the building footprint and
525yd³ outside of the building footprint) of cut and 750yd³ of fill (1yd³ within the building footprint
and 749yd³ outside the building footprint). The proposed grading within the building footprint
primarily consists of excavation to accommodate new floor area below the existing grade. The
proposed grading outside the building footprint is to accommodate a driveway for access with a
15% slope. Two separate retaining walls are proposed for access, one adjacent to the driveway
(3.5’ tall) and the second (7.8’ tall) around the turn-around area for access. An additional
retaining wall (7’ tall) is proposed to accommodate a rear patio/courtyard area. The foundation
of the proposed new structure also contains an 8’ step with the slope of the lot.
The proposed new residence measures 15’-4” tall, as measured from the average elevation of
the setback line to the ridge line; and 27’-7”, as measured from the point where the lowest
foundation or slab meets finished grade to the ridge line. The proposed structure size is
3,463ft², consisting of a 1,723ft² first floor (partially below existing grade), a 1,340ft² second
floor, and a 400ft² detached garage. The proposed area of hardscape, primarily consisting of a
driveway is 5,580ft² on the 61,860ft² lot. The proposed lot coverage is 14% of the required
minimum of 40% in the designated RS-2 zoning district.
As noted in the ‘Background’ section, the proposed project is a re-design of a project previously
denied by the Planning Commission. Table 1 below compares the basic elements of both
projects.
Table 1
Development Standard Permitted
Previous
Proposal (Denied
by PC)
Revised
Proposal
Location of Project RS-2 RS-2 & OH RS-2
Quantity of Grading 505 1500
Height of Retaining walls
(outside of bldg footprint) 13' & 9'-6" 3'-6" & 7'-8"
(within the bldg footprint) 7'-0" & 8'-10"
Structure Size 3508 3463
Maximum Height 16' / 30' 11'-3" / 29'-3" 15'-6" / 27'-7"
The proposed structure size and height of the residence is relatively the same between the
previous and proposed project. Although the quantity of grading has substantially increased,
the previous project’s grading mainly consisted of backfill to elevate the existing grade under the
9-41
Page 4
building footprint and driveway, while the current project’s grading is balanced and involves
primarily excavation into the existing slope to lower the existing grade level. Additionally, the
proposed fill is to create slopes adjacent to new structures and retaining walls to blend it with
the existing slopes in an attempt to maintain a visual continuity of the hillside character.
The previously proposed project included 13’-0” and 9’-6” tall retaining walls that created a
benching effect on the property. The proposed project only involves a 3.5’ tall retaining wall
adjacent to the new access that increases in height to 7’-8” at the turn-around area. The
proposed project also includes a 7’-0” tall retaining wall integrated as part of the new residence
to accommodate an octagonal courtyard area. Unlike the previous project, the retaining walls
proposed as part of the pending project will not be readily visible or appear prominent from the
neighboring properties or from the public right-of-way (Palos Verdes Drive East)
The location of the previously proposed project was partially within the OH district where the
City’s Code does not allow for new construction of a single-family residence. The proposed
project is entirely within the residential zoning district.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Staff has reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Categorical Exemptions are projects, which have been determined not to
have a significant effect on the environment and have been exempted from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15303 (Class 3 Exemption) allows the
construction of one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone.
Upon completion of this review, it has been determined that this request for the construction of a
new residence is categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15303
(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS
Grading Permit – Major
A Major Grading Permit is required for projects which result in excess of 50yd³ of grading in any
two-year period. When a Major Grading Permit application proposes earth movement involving
1,000yd³ or more of earth, the application shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
consideration with criteria set forth in RPVMC §17.76.040. The proposed project involves a
total of 1,500yd³ of earth movement; a Major Grading Permit subject to Planning Commission
review is required. A Major Grading application shall be assessed in light of the following
criteria (in bold type):
1) The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of
the lot;
The primary use of the subject lot is residential as identified in the City’s General Plan and
Zoning map. The applicant is proposing to excavate 750yd³ to lower the existing grade to
eliminate view impacts that would otherwise have a potential to cause significant view
impairment to the neighboring properties if the new residence was proposed in the same
location on the existing building pad level. More specifically, the proposed 750yd³ of grading
consists of 225yd³ of excavation within the building footprint to accommodate a lower level (1st
9-42
Page 5
floor) below the existing grade and 525yd³ of excavation outside of the building footprint to
accommodate a new driveway for access. The applicant is also proposing balanced grading by
filling a total of 750yd³, of which 1yd³ is within the building footprint and 749yd³ is outside of the
building footprint for access purposes. Given that the proposed balanced grading of 1,500yd³ of
grading is to accommodate a new residence that minimizes view impact to surrounding
residences, staff feels that this criterion can be met.
2) The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely
affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing area of
neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence, this
finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade
under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure is lower
than a structure that would have been built in the same location on the lot if
measured from preconstruction (existing) grade;
The proposed grading at the building pad area is to lower the existing grade by a maximum of
8’-10” and create a new lower finished grade to accommodate the proposed lower floor (1st
floor). Lowering the building pad results in lowering the overall ridge of the new structure that
would be higher if it is built in the same location on the lot, as measured from preconstruction
grade. Therefore, this criterion can be met.
3) The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished
contours are reasonably natural;
Previous Project (ZON2001-00213)
The previously denied project proposed 505yd³ of grading primarily to raise the grade under the
residence and the new driveway. The applicant was proposing a 13’ tall combination wall (9’-6”
retaining & 3’-6” freestanding) along the driveway and garage while proposing another 9’-6” tall
combination wall (6’-6” retaining & 3’ proposed) at the rear of the new residence. These
retaining walls would have been visible from San Ramon Canyon and the residences across the
canyon on Tarapaca and Azores Place. Further, these walls would have been highly apparent
and visible from the Palos Verdes Drive East roadway known as the “switchbacks”. The
applicant at that time was not proposing any man-made slopes or other methods to blend the
proposed grading with the remaining natural slopes on site, resulting in excessively tall and
unsightly retaining walls that would have created a benching effect on the property. For this
reason, this criterion could not be met for the previous proposal.
Proposed Project (ZON2009-00396)
The proposed project involves 1,500yd³ of grading primarily to excavate underneath the building
footprint to place the new residence into the hillside, rather than placing it on top of the existing
grade that would require fill. The secondary reason for the amount of grading is to create 2:1
slopes beyond the proposed retaining walls adjacent to the driveway, turnaround area and
garage, and 3:1 slopes beyond the rear of the new home. The created slopes will blend in with
the natural slopes that exist beyond the proposed grading area and thus will appear reasonably
consistent with the remaining natural slopes on the subject lot. Although the quantity of grading
has substantially increased compared to the previous project, it is necessary to maintain visual
continuity of the sloping character of the site. The previous project did not involve as much
9-43
Page 6
grading because it involved 13’ tall and 9’-6” tall combination walls with no consideration of
blending them into the site.
The proposed grading area is approximately 30% of the total lot size and the remaining 70% of
the lot will remain untouched. Staff does not feel that the area of grading is substantial in
proportion to the total lot size and feels that it is necessary given the reason for the grading.
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. Although the proposed grading will inevitably disturb the
existing contours to accommodate a new residence and driveway, staff feels that it is
reasonable and necessary. As such, staff feels that the applicant has made an effort to
minimize disturbance of the existing contours by only grading what is necessary for the
proposed new home and access, while creating slopes to preserve the sloping appearance of
the site. As such, this criterion can be met.
4) The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and
appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or
manufactured slope into the natural topography;
Previous Project (ZON2001-00213)
The previously denied project involved a combination wall (retaining & freestanding) measuring
13’ in height adjacent to the driveway/garage and 9’-6” in height on a downslope that parallels
the rear of the new residence. These retaining walls were to be backfilled to elevate the existing
grade to accommodate a driveway and residence at a higher elevation, rather than cutting into
the slope to follow the existing contours on site. The creation of a pad-like appearance through
fill under the building footprint and excessively high retaining walls did not blend in with the
natural slopes on the subject property and was visually apparent. As such, this criterion could
not be met for the previous proposal.
Proposed Project (ZON2009-00396)
As discussed in criterion #3, the quantity of grading on the previous project was substantially
lower because the applicant chose to construct excessively high walls without any consideration
to the natural topography of the site. The proposed project involves significantly lower retaining
walls and placing the new residence into the hillside rather than placing it at top. The proposal
involves 2:1 and 3:1 manufactured slopes adjacent to the new driveway, garage, and the
residence in an attempt to blend it in with the remaining slopes beyond the proposed
construction area. Staff feels that the applicant has preserved the existing topographic features
of the site by minimizing the area of grading and blending the proposed man-made slopes to
match the remaining natural slopes. As such, this criterion can be met.
5) For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood character;
“Neighborhood character” is defined to consider the existing characteristics of an area,
including:
9-44
Page 7
a) Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage
of the residence and all ancillary structures;
The average size of the surrounding residences that make up the immediate neighborhood
on San Ramon Drive is 2,519ft² including the garage and any ancillary structures. The size
range of the 20-closest homes is between 2,106ft² and 4,009ft², as shown in “Table 2”
below. The proposed residence with the detached two-car garage measures 3,463ft² in total
size. Although the resulting structure size will be 944ft² larger than the average size in the
neighborhood, as noted in Table 2, ten other existing residences are also greater than the
average structure size. Additionally, the proposed structure size of 3,463ft² is within the
range of structure sizes in the neighborhood and will be smaller than the largest residence
that measures 4,009ft² in size. As such, the proposed structure size is in scale with other
neighboring homes in the immediate neighborhood.
Table 2
Address Lot Size Structure Size No. of Stories
2700 San Ramon 16,990 2,772 2
2701 San Ramon 142,576 2,114 1
2702 San Ramon 16,670 2,563 1
2703 San Ramon 26,260 2,196 1
2704 San Ramon 16,920 4,009 2
2708 San Ramon 17,300 2,339 1
2709 San Ramon 14,420 2,196 1
2714 San Ramon 14,180 2,196 1
2715 San Ramon 10,030 2,196 1
2723 San Ramon 10,520 2,634 2
2726 San Ramon 11,110 2,544 1
2727 San Ramon 33,977 2,521 1
2729 San Ramon 39,718 2,588 1
2732 San Ramon 16,440 2,196 1
2736 San Ramon 30,060 3,098 2
2742 San Ramon 11,310 2,886 1
2749 San Ramon 12,560 2,402 1
2750 San Ramon 10,450 2,106 1
2757 San Ramon 10,400 2,196 1
2758 San Ramon 10,010 2,676 1
Average 14,783 2,519 1
2700 1/2 San Ramon vacant vacant
Proposed 61,860 3,463 2
* The above calculation for structure size is based on building permits on file with the City and
include the garage area, which if not documented on the building permit was calculated based
on the Development Code’s minimum dimensions for a two car garage of 18’ x 20’ (360ft²).
Lot coverage includes the building footprint, courtyards, trellises, decks over 30” in height,
parking areas, driveways, and impervious surfaces. The proposed lot coverage includes the
building footprint of the residence and garage, covered patio/deck, trellis, and driveway,
9-45
Page 8
resulting in 14% lot coverage. The resulting lot coverage will be comparable with the
existing lot coverage on other properties and consistent with the 40% maximum allowable
for the RS-2 zoning district. It should also be noted that the building footprint is only
approximately 1,800ft², which is substantially less than most other homes in the surrounding
neighborhood and by itself would only result in 2.9% lot coverage.
b) Architectural styles, including façade treatments, structure height, open space
between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number
of stories, and building materials; and
Previous Project (ZON2001-00213)
The previously denied project incorporated a shed roof design that was not compatible with
the immediate neighborhood and proposed a new residence within an area that is partially
not suitable for development. The previously proposed project location was partially within
the Open Space Hazard (OH) area of the lot and partially within the single-family residential
district portion of the lot. The City’s Development Code does not allow new construction of
single-family homes within the Open Space Hazard area. Additionally, due to the proposed
13’ tall and 9’-6” tall combination walls, the resulting appearance of these heights combined
with a structure height of 20’-3” to 29’-9” above created an overall façade that appeared
massive and bulky as viewed from the surrounding area. Given these reasons, the
previously proposed project was determined to be bulky and massive and therefore this
finding could not be made.
Proposed Project (ZON2009-00396)
The subject property is located in a neighborhood comprised of other single-family
residences that were built as part of a tract development under authority of Los Angeles
County during 1959 and 1960. The subject property was created by deed in 1963, and is
the only remaining vacant parcel in the immediate neighborhood. The proposed residence
will emulate a home style prevalent in the existing neighborhood, especially when viewed
from the north façade. More specifically, from this perspective (north), the residence
appears one-story with stucco white exterior finish, symmetrical windows, covered entry and
porch with a tile roof. The roof style of the detached garage is hipped while the residence is
pavilion hipped. The east elevation transitions to a split-level home with the inclusion of a
balcony to the rear. The west and south elevations include elements double-height roofed
porches with arched areas.
The residences in the immediate neighborhood contain stucco or wood siding exterior
finishes, clay/cement tile or composition shingle roofs, hipped and/or gable roofs, high or low
pitched roofs, rock and/or brick accents, casement windows, bay windows and/or picture
windows, wooden porches, and covered patios. Although the proposed residence has some
elements not prevalent in other homes, staff feels that the overall design is compatible with
the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed roofing material, roof design, exterior finish,
wooden porch and trellis are consistent with what exists on other neighboring properties.
Given the size of the subject lot, the applicant is proposing a larger open space between the
new residence and the neighboring homes. Additionally, the number of stories and structure
height is similar to the other four two-story homes in the neighborhood. In regards to bulk
9-46
Page 9
and mass, the proposed residence will not be visible from San Ramon Drive or from
neighboring structures on San Ramon Drive, as it will be located significantly lower than the
street level and the building pad levels of the neighboring homes. However, the structure
will be visible from the Palos Verdes Drive East roadway referred to as the “switchbacks”,
and from the residences along the rim of the San Ramon Canyon that are located along
Tarapaca Road and Azores Place. Based on several site visits, staff believes that the bulk
and mass of the proposed structure will not be any more apparent than other existing homes
located at the top of the canyon. Additionally, the applicant is using multiple setbacks and
covered patios, balconies and trellises to break up the bulk/mass even further. Most
notably, a large portion of the first floor will be located below the pre-construction grade.
Furthermore, although the City’s Code allows a structure up to 30’ in height on a sloping lot,
the applicant has voluntarily lowered the height by 2’-3”, decreasing the height to 27’-7” to
lessen the bulk/mass of the proposed structure. The numerous articulations proposed
through various design features of the new structure results in a project that is not bulky or
massive.
c) Front, side and rear yard setbacks.
The setbacks of other homes on neighboring properties vary heavily as evidenced in the
aerial photos available at the City. The homes that have been remodeled or constructed in
the recent years appear to have smaller setbacks than the originally constructed homes.
While the proposed detached garage has a minimum required front yard setback of 20’, the
entire new residence is set back approximately 45’ from the front property line (north).
Additionally, given the size of the subject lot, the proposed side yard setback is 20’ (west)
and over 330’ (east) and the proposed rear yard setback ranges between 20’ and 35’. As
such, the proposed setbacks are larger than what exists on most of the neighboring
properties, primarily due to the strategic location of the new residence and the size of the
subject lot. Although in most cases the setbacks are different than a majority of the homes,
the proposed setbacks are quire larger thereby contributing to the open feel of this
neighborhood and thus not incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
In conclusion, staff feels that the concerns pertaining to the previous project’s architectural style
and apparent bulk or mass resulting from excessively large combination walls and backfill to
elevate the building pad and driveway have been addressed with the revised project. Although
the grading quantity has increased, it eliminates the need for large retaining walls and helps
create a structure that is placed within the existing hillside, achieving neighborhood compatibility
while maintaining visual continuity of the hillside character. As such, this criterion can be met.
6) In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and
introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes form soil erosion and slippage
and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas;
The proposed project does not involve new residential tract and this criterion does not apply.
9-47
Page 10
7) The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize
grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the
hillside;
This proposal does not include any grading for streets or other public improvements; therefore,
this criterion does not apply.
8) The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation;
There is no natural landscape or wildlife habitat existing on the proposed grading area. As
such, this criterion can be met.
9) The grading conforms to the following standards for grading on slopes, creation of
new slopes, heights of retaining walls, and maximum driveway steepness.
Table 3 below summarizes the proposed project’s consistency with these criteria.
Development
Standard Grading Criteria Previous Project
(Denied by PC)
Proposed
Project
Grading on slopes
over 35% steepness
Permitted on vacant lots created prior
to the City’s incorporation, not zoned
OH, based upon a finding that the
grading will not threaten public health,
safety and welfare
No Yes
Maximum finished
slopes
35% steepness, unless next to a
driveway where 67% steepness is
permitted
Yes No
Maximum depth of
cut or fill
5’ depth, unless based upon a finding
that unusual topography, soil
conditions, previous grading or other
circumstances make such grading
reasonable and necessary
No Yes
Restricted grading
areas
No grading on slopes over 50%
steepness Yes Yes
One 8’-tall upslope wall (unless in
front yard or street side setback) Yes No
One 3½’-tall downslope wall No Yes
One 3½’-tall up- or downslope wall in
each sideyard No Yes
One 5’-tall up- or downslope wall
adjacent to driveway No No
Retaining walls
Retaining walls within building
footprint may exceed 8’ Yes Yes
20% maximum slope permitted, with a
single 10’-long section up to 22% Yes Yes Driveways
67% slopes permitted adjacent to
driveways Yes Yes
9-48
Page 11
a) Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% shall be allowed on recorded and
legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975, which are not currently
zoned open space/hazard, if the Director or Planning Commission finds that such
grading, as conditioned, will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare.
The proposed project involves grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% on a lot
created by deed under authority of Los Angeles County on May 7, 1963 and a portion of
the grading involves a section of the driveway and related 3.5’ tall retaining wall within
the Open Space Hazard area. The RPVMC §17.32 Open Space Hazard District allows
grading on extreme slopes equal to or exceeding 35%, provided that all grading criteria
(17.76.040) can be met. Additionally, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report
addressing development on the subject site and slope stability. The City Geologist has
reviewed and granted a conceptual approval, concluding that the proposed grading over
the extreme slope area will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare. As such,
this standard can be met.
b) No finished slopes greater than 35% shall be created, except at the point of
vehicular access adjacent to driveways.
The applicant is proposing 2:1 (50%) manufactured slopes adjacent to proposed
retaining walls, garage, and the new residence. Therefore, this standard cannot be met.
c) Except for the excavation of a basement or cellar, a fill or cut shall not exceed
a depth of 5’ at any point except where the Director or Planning Commission
determines that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other
circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary.
The proposed project involves an 8’-10” depth of cut to accommodate the new lower
level. The new lower level (1st floor) is partially below the existing or pre-construction
grade that results in a new accessible area created and supported by the construction of
a retaining wall. Although taller than 5’ in height, City’s Code [RPVMC
§17.02.040(B)(1)(d)] requires that on a sloping lot, the foundation of the structure shall
contain a minimum 8’ step with the slope of the lot. As such, staff feels that this cut of 8’-
10” in depth is reasonable and necessary. Therefore, this standard can be met.
d) No fill or cut shall be permitted on a slope exceeding 50% gradient, unless the
grading is on a 67% slope.
No grading is proposed on slopes exceeding 50% gradient, and therefore this standard
can be met.
e) Retaining walls.
i) Unless located within the required front or streetside setback, one upslope
retaining wall not to exceed 8’ in height may be used. Retaining walls located
in the required front or streetside setback shall not exceed 3.5’ in height;
A 7.8’ tall upslope retaining wall is proposed within the front yard setback to
accommodate a turn-around area on the driveway and this standard cannot be met.
9-49
Page 12
ii) One downslope retaining wall not to exceed 3.5’ may be used;
On downslope retaining wall measuring 3.5’ is proposed to the rear of the new
residence. As such, this standard can be met.
iii) On lots sloping with the street and other configurations not discussed
above, one retaining wall not to exceed 3.5’ may be used on each side of the
lot;
One 3.5’ tall retaining wall is proposed to the east side of the lot, adjacent to the new
driveway. Therefore, this standard can be met.
iv) Retaining walls may be allowed up to 5’ in height, adjacent to driveways,
only if required for access or slope stabilization. There shall be no more than
one upslope or one downslope retaining wall adjacent to driveways.
One 7.8’ tall upslope retaining wall and one 3.5’ tall retaining wall are proposed
adjacent to the driveway for access purposes. Since one of the driveway retaining
walls exceeds 5’ in height, this standard cannot be met.
v) Retaining walls which are an integral part of a structure may exceed 8’ in
height.
An 8’-10” tall retaining wall is proposed as an integral part of the new residence.
Therefore, this standard can be met.
f) Driveways
i) Driveways which exceed 20% slope shall not be permitted except that one
length, not at the point of access, of not more than 10 linear feet may have a
slope of up to 22%;
The proposed project does not involve driveways exceeding 20% slope. Therefore,
this standard can be met.
ii) Slopes not greater than 67% may be permitted adjacent to driveways.
The proposed project does not involve the creation of slopes greater than 67%
adjacent to driveways. Therefore, this standard can be met.
As evidenced in Table 3 above, three of the specific criteria within criterion (9) cannot be met.
According to Municipal Code Section 17.76.040(E)(10), the Planning Commission may grant a
grading permit in excess of that permissible under subsection (E)(9) upon finding that:
10a. The criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) are satisfied;
As evidenced in the discussions above, this finding can be met.
9-50
Page 13
10b. The approval is consistent with the purposes of the Grading Permit;
The purpose of the Grading Permit is to provide for reasonable development of land
while ensuring maximum preservation of the natural scenic character of the area and
maintaining the visual continuity of hill without being unsightly. Staff feels that the
proposed project does not involve grading beyond what is necessary for the proposed
development of a single-family residence and garage on the subject property and
preserves the hillside character by creating slopes to blend in with the existing slopes on
site. As such, this finding can be met.
10c. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) will not constitute a grant
of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity; and
Departure from standards in subsection (E)(9) is to allow the applicant to grade and
construct retaining walls that are necessary to allow the development of the proposed
project. The applicant is not proposing any grading or retaining walls in excess of what
is necessary to support a new modest sized residence and a driveway for access. The
subject lot was intended at its creation to be developed with a single-family residence,
similar to other neighboring lots. Contrary to the neighboring lots, the subject parcel is a
downsloping lot that requires retaining walls to support new development. 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. As such, staff does not feel that allowing the applicant to
do what is necessary to support a new modest sized residence and an access way
similar to what is exists on other neighboring properties constitutes a granting of special
privileges. Therefore, this finding can be met.
10d. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) will not be detrimental to
the public safety nor to other property;
South Shores Landslide – As indicated under the ‘Additional Information’ section in this
report, the South Shores Landslide is classified as a dormant old landslide area and the
City Geologist confirmed that this landslide is not active and that the proposed
development will have no impacts upon this landslide.
Open Space Hazard (OH) – No construction other than grading is proposed over the OH
area. The City’s Development Code (RPVMC §17.32 Open Space Hazard District)
allows grading, provided that all grading criteria (17.76.040) can be met. As evidenced
in this staff report, all grading criteria can be met with the proposed project, as
conditioned in the attached Exhibit ‘A’.
Fire Access – As evidenced in the attachment, the County of Los Angeles Fire
Department approved the proposed plans. Typically a minimum unobstructed width of
20’, clear to the sky is required within 150’ of all portions of the exterior building walls.
However, if providing a 20’ access is not feasible due to the configuration of a lot, an
applicant may provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, subject to review
and approval of a Sprinkler Plan Check Unit.
9-51
Page 14
Additional Reviews – The applicant will be required to submit the proposed plans to
Building and Safety plan check review to ensure that the proposed project will comply
with applicable building codes. Additionally, while the applicant has attained conceptual
approval of a SUSMP (Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan) and geology, the
applicant will be required to submit a final SUSMP along with a geotechnical report for a
final review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Staff feels that these
required reviews will ensure public safety. 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. As such, this finding can be met.
10e. Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of
property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given to
only the applicant.
Once a decision is rendered, a notice will be sent, consistent with this finding.
The previous and the revised project both could not satisfy all findings required under
subsection 9 of the grading criteria. However, the proposed project is able to satisfy all required
findings under subsection 10 while the previous project could not. In conclusion, the grading
concerns raised in the previously proposed application were able to be addressed though
modifications included in the revised project. As such, all grading criteria can be met.
Detached Garage
Accessory structures are generally limited to 12’ in height. However, a detached garage or a
flagpole may be allowed to exceed this height limitation up to 16’ in height provided that there
will be no significant impact on views [RPVMC §17.48.050(D)]. The proposed detached garage
will have a ridgeline below the building pad levels of neighboring properties on San Ramon
Drive and therefore will not impact any existing views. As such, approval of the detached
garage at 16’ in height is warranted.
Site Plan Review
The Site Plan Review application only applies to single-story portions and other accessory
structures of the proposed project that are not integral part of the Grading Permit request. This
is limited to a trellis adjacent to the entry court, and skylights/solar panels to the roof. These
components of the proposed project comply with the RS-2 development standards and
therefore may be approved.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Correspondence
Staff received sixteen letters from ten separate neighbors in opposition to the proposed project
all expressing geological concerns that developing the subject site will trigger activation of
nearby landslides. As noted in the ‘Background’ section, one of the reasons for denial of the
previous project was insufficient geotechnical information pertaining to the stability of the site.
9-52
Page 15
To address this concern, the applicant prepared additional geologic reports (attached) that
address the stability of the site. The City Geologist reviewed and conceptually approved the
reports which concluded that the stability analysis is sufficient to verify suitability of the proposed
project in its location. Given the number of comments and concerns raised by the public related
to geologic stability, the City Geologist will be in attendance at the Planning Commission
meeting. Nevertheless, staff has reviewed the recently submitted letters from the public with the
City Geologist and provided below is the general response form the City Geologist on the issues
raised by the public in regards to the proximity of the South Shores Landslide, Tarapaca
Landslide, and the Upper San Ramon Landslide.
According to the City Geologist, the South Shores landslide is an area that begins
southwest of the subject site and extends to the ocean. This area encompasses the
portion of Palos Verdes Drive East known as the “switchbacks” and the City’s Shoreline
Park located south of Palos Verdes Drive South, widening eastward short of Anchovy
Street in City of Los Angeles (San Pedro). According to the Landslide Inventory map of
the Palos Verdes Peninsula of Los Angeles County, South Shores landslide is classified
as a dormant old landslide area. The City Geologist also confirmed that this landslide is
not active and that the proposed development will have no impacts upon this landslide.
According to the City Geologist, the Tarapaca Landslide (also known as Lower San
Ramon Landslide) is an active landslide identified as the area east of the “switchbacks”
within San Ramon Canyon. This landslide appears to have been triggered by erosion at
the canyon bottom below the landslide. The Tarapaca Landslide begins near the
southern tip of Tarapaca Road and extends slightly into Los Angeles County to the east
and to the southern most tip of the “switchbacks” to the south. This landslide is located
on the east side of San Ramon Canyon to the southwest of the subject site and
according to the City Geologist will not affect or be influenced by the proposed
development.
According to the City Geologist, the Upper San Ramon Landslide is identified as the
area south of Palos Verdes Drive East, between San Ramon Drive and Calle Aventura.
Several years ago, there was a landslide caused by an inadequate drainage system
during a rainy season in this area and subsequent erosion of the toe of the landslide.
However, the City stabilized the landslide by creating a buttress fill in the section that
experienced slope failure and stabilized the canyon. The Upper San Ramon Landslide
has been stabilized and is located significantly north of the subject site and according to
the City Geologist will not affect or be influenced by the proposed development.
One of the letters also mentioned enforcement of CC&Rs. It should be noted that the City does
not enforce CC&R’s. The same letter questioned the City’s requirement for driveway width.
The minimum required driveway width is 10’ according to the City’s Code. A separate letter
mentioned that the existing driveway leading to the subject lot is not 10’ in width. According to
the Los Angeles County parcel map, an access of 10.14’ in width is owned by the abutting
neighbor to the north located at 2700 San Ramon Drive, leading from the street (San Ramon
Drive) to the subject lot. The subject lot has a 10’ wide access easement over this area.
However, one or both of the abutting neighbors (2700 & 2701 San Ramon) have improvements
(i.e. block wall and/or wooden fence) over this 10.14’ of access. It should be noted that the
removal of existing improvements over the access area and other issues related to property line
disputes are a civil matter between private property owners.
9-53
Page 16
Another letter also expressed concern that the proposed structure size (3,463ft²) and overall
height (27’-7”) is incompatible with the immediate neighborhood. Based on the reasoning
detailed under Grading Permit criterion 5, staff feels that the proposed project is compatible.
Staff received an email from a neighbor immediately north (2700 San Ramon) of the subject site
expressing concerns that the flags on the temporary silhouette have been sagging and it has
been hard to visualize the proposed new residence on the subject lot. Due to the recent heavy
rain storms, the silhouette was affected, resulting in sagging flags. However, the silhouette
stakes which have been certified as accurately depicting the height of the proposed project have
remained intact. Staff’s assessment of the proposed project in terms of bulk or mass and view
impacts was not affected by the sagging flags.
Green Building Construction Program
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted a voluntary program for Green Building Construction
that applies to residential and non-residential projects. The City is offering permit streamlining
as well as up to a 50% rebate of Planning and Building Permit fees for voluntary participation in
the City’s Green Building Construction program. The program is designed for new construction
or major remodels, whereby more than 50% of the interior and exterior walls of an existing
structure will be removed.
Since the original submittal, the applicant has shown great interest to construct a “Green
Building”. “Green Building” is a term given to buildings that are sited, designed, constructed and
operated to enhance the well-being of occupants, and to minimize negative impacts on the
community and natural environment. Typically, “Green Buildings” are higher quality, provide a
healthier environment to live in, are less costly to maintain, consume fewer natural resources
and generate less waste.
The first page of the submitted plans includes a “Green” checklist indicating what measures are
proposed to be incorporated into the new residence and what point value the home can attain.
Additionally, the applicant submitted a letter of intent to construct a “Green Building” and
became eligible for the City’s Green Building Construction program. City staff determined that
the submitted project meets the minimum point value of 50 (66 proposed) set by Build It Green
and has expedited the review, making this project a priority over other non-green applications
submitted in the same time period.
Green features incorporated into the proposed project include, but are not limited to: recycling
job site construction waste; installing high-efficiency irrigation system; installing water efficient
fixtures (i.e. showerheads, faucets, etc.); building a detached garage; using durable and non-
combustible siding and roofing materials; insulating all hot water pipes; installing Energy Star
appliances; installing a solar water heating system; and using environmentally friendly
preferable materials for interior finish and flooring.
To encourage “Green Buildings”, the processing of green building applications is expedited by
staff. Along these lines, this item has been placed as the first public hearing item on the
agenda. Furthermore, if this project is approved, the applicant will receive an expedited plan
check process. Once the building permits are issued and the property owner provides a copy of
the Build It Green certification documenting that the residence has been constructed or
remodeled as a certified “Green Building”, upon verification by the Director, the property owner
9-54
Page 17
will receive a rebate in the amount of 50% of the total Planning and Building and Safety
application fees.
Permit Streamlining Act Compliance
The proposed project was deemed complete on December 18, 2009. Since the project has
been determined to be exempt from the provision of CEQA, a decision must be rendered within
60 days of the date the project was deemed complete. As such, the decision deadline for this
application is February 16, 2010. It should be noted that the applicant was not available for the
January Planning Commission meetings and therefore this project has been scheduled for
February 9, 2010 public hearing. Should this project be continued to a date certain, the
applicant and the City needs to agree to a 90-day extension of the decision deadline, resulting
in a new deadline of May 16, 2010.
Project Plan
The applicant was not able to submit the appropriate number of plans needed for distribution to
each Planning Commissioner by the time the staff report was completed and ready for delivery
to the Planning Commission. The plans are expected to be submitted on February 4th for
delivery to the Planning Commissioners that afternoon.
CONCLUSION
The previous project was denied because the distribution of grading does not minimize
disturbance to the natural contours and instead create a benching effect on site; proposed fill
did not blend in with the natural contours and instead backfilled to create an unnatural pad and
driveway; proposed home was bulky/massive and the architectural design was not compatible;
and there was insufficient geologic information pertaining to the stability of the site. The
proposed project has addressed these through locating the proposed residence into the hillside;
creating man-made slopes that blend in with the natural topography of the site; constructing
smaller retaining walls integrated into the hillside and residence; modifying the architectural
style and incorporating more articulation to achieve neighborhood compatibility; and providing
more information with regards to stability of the site, ultimately obtaining approval from the City
Geologist. Based on these reasons and discussion above, staff is concluding that the proposed
project meets all of the required finds for a Site Plan Review and Grading Permit application.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Site Plan Review
and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00396).
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission’s consideration:
1. Identify any issues of concern and direct the applicant to re-design the application; or,
2. Deny the Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00396) without
prejudice and direct staff to prepare a Planning Commission resolution for review at a future
meeting.
9-55
P.C. Staff Report (ZON2010-00396)
FEBRUARY 9, 2010
Page 18
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-__
Public Correspondence
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-32
Planning Commission Minutes (July 22, 2003)
Geotechnical Conceptual Approval (including submitted reports)
Stormwater Plan Check Conceptual Approval (including submitted attachments)
County of Los Angeles Fire Department Conditional Approval
Project Plans
9-56
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A SITE PLAN REIVEW AND
GRADING PERMIT, TO CONDUCT 1,500YD³ OF GRADING FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 27’-7” TALL, 3,463FT² TWO-STORY
RESIDENCE, AND THREE SEPARATE RETAINING WALLS AT 2700½
SAN RAMON.
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2001, a Site Plan Review application (ZON2001-00213)
was submitted, requesting approval to conduct 505 cubic yards of grading to accommodate a
new 3,508ft² two-story residence; and,
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2003, the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement denied this application based on the following reasons: the distribution of grading
does not minimize disturbance to the natural contours and the finished contours are not
reasonably natural; the proposed fill are not consistent with and do not preserve the natural
contours nor blend in with the natural topography; the proposed design of the new home is not
compatible with the neighborhood; and insufficient geotechnical information pertaining to the
stability of the site; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2003, the property owner (Harold Thompson) appealed the
Director’s decision to the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2003 the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2003-32, denying without prejudice the appeal, thereby upholding the Director’s
decision of denial; and,
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2003, the property owner filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision to the City Council, but indicated that additional information would be
collected and submitted as part of the appeal; and,
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2009, the property owner submitted a re-designed project in an
attempt to address the issues raised in denying the project; and,
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2009, the City Council denied the appeal without
prejudice and directed staff to credit the paid appeal fee towards the new application fee
because the revised project differed substantially from the previously considered project and
time lapse of six-years since the original appeal; and,
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2009, a new application was submitted (Site Plan Review,
and Grading Permit), requesting to conduct 1,500 yd³ grading to accommodate a new two-story
3,463ft² residence; and,
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2009, the project was deemed incomplete based on missing
information; and,
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2009, the project was deemed complete after subsequent
reviews; and,
9-57
WHEREAS, a notice was published on December 31, 2009, 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. ("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 the Site Plan Review and Grading
Permit will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the project has been
found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303 – New Construction); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 9,
2010, 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: That the proposed project is a request to 1) construct a 27’-7” tall, 3,463ft²
two-story residence; 2) conduct 1,500yd³ of grading; and 3) construct a 3.5’ and a 7.8’ tall
retaining wall adjacent to the new driveway, and a 7’ tall retaining wall integrated into the
residence to accommodate a rear patio-courtyard on a vacant lot.
Section 2: 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 3: 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 higher if it was built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction
grade.
Section 4: 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 5: 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.
9-58
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.
Section 6: 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 façade 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 7: 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 8: 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:
a) The criteria of subsections (E)1 through (E)8 are satisfied;
b) The approval is consistent with the purposes of the Grading permit;
c) Departure from the standards in subsection (E)9 will not constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; and,
d) Departure from the standards of subsection (E)9 will not be detrimental to the public
safety nor to other property.
Additionally, 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
9-59
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 9: 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 10: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and
any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within
fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, February
24, 2010. A $2,255.00 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 February 24, 2010.
Section 11: 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, a Site Plan Review and
Grading Permit for 1,500yd³ of grading and the construction of a new 27’-7” tall, 3,463ft² two-
story residence (Case No. ZON2009-00396).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of February 2010, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS:
ABSENT:
Jeffrey Lewis,
Chairman
Joel Rojas, AICP
Director of Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
9-60
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.
9-61
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 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 & 525yd³ outside);
ii. 750yd³ of fill (1yd³ 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 20’-0” (20’ proposed to the garage, 45’ proposed from SFR)
Side (W) 5’-0” (20’ proposed)
9-62
Side (E) 5’-0” (330’ proposed)
Rear 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 submit a complete Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan to the
Building and Safety Division for review and approval.
22. 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
23. Fire Department vehicular access roads must be installed and maintained in a
serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction.
24. The gradient of Fire Department vehicle access roads shall not exceed 15% unless
approved by the Chief.
25. Grade breaks shall not exceed the maximum angle of approach or departure for Fire
Department apparatus.
9-63
26. 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 ½” stroke.
27. 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.
28. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Plans shall be submitted to the
Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation.
29. Exit doors shall be capable of opening without the use of a key or any special knowledge
or effort.
30. Comply with Title 24, 310.9.1 regarding fire warning systems. Smoke detectors to be
hard wired with a battery backup.
31. Comply with Title 24, 310.4 regarding secondary egress requirement.
32. 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.
9-64
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
c
e
9
-
6
5
John A.Feyk
2727 San Ramon Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
31 January 2010
Members ofthe Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Reference:Case No.ZON2009-00396
Gentlemen,
RECEIVED
FEB 02 2010
PlANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
I and my neighbors are concerned that the South Shores landslide,which has been reactivated on
the east side of San Ramon Canyon,might be reactivated on the Canyon's west side below San
Ramon Drive.It appears that the reactivation which has occurred is the result of heavy rains
rather than any direct human activity.Our concern has been that rains could do the same thing on
the side below our street.We are much more concerned now by ofthe proposal of extensive
grading and the addition of structural weight above the boundary where the ancient landslide
daylights.
Two borings have been performed in the area of proposed grading and building.The landslide
potential increases with the steepness ofthe strata's dip (0°is flat and 90°is vertical)and with the
presence of a clay layer that serves as a lubricant when wet by heavy rain.At a depth between 43
feet 4 inches and 44 feet 3 inches,boring #1 discovered a bentonite clay layer.Fortuitously,the
dip of 24°is the least observed at any depth of this boring.In comparison,the dips are 29°at 41
feet and 40°at 52 feet.
Boring #2,which unlike boring #I is located in the area of proposed house construction,curiously
stopped short of the bentonite layer.This boring stopped at a depth of only 25 feet,at which depth
the dip was found to be an alanning 60°.
There is simply inadequate geological data upon which to make an informed decision regarding the
risk of activating or reactivating a landslide.At the very minimum,bore samples to the bentonite
clay layer must be made at both ends of the proposed location of the structure.Determination of
the coefficient of friction of wet clay,the steepest dip of the strata adjacent to the bentonite layer,
and the weight per sqnare foot of structure supported by this potential slip plane will enable a
reasonable estimate of factor of safety.Absent this information,there can be no engineering basis
for a decision on whether or not to permit grading and construction.
Email:john.feyk@cox.net
Work tel:310-416-1625
9-66
RECElVED
rEB 02 2[l'!O
pLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Mr.Joel Rojas
Director of Planning
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Dear Mr.Rojas:
Mark Matthews
6304 Via Ciega
RPV,CA 90275
January 31,2010
As a new resident of Rancho Palos Verdes,I anl vcry concerned about the
application for height variation and major grading pertaining to the development of
property at 2700 Y2 San Ramon Drive (Case Number ZON2009-00396).One of my
primary concerns is the instability of the land in and around the San Ramon Canyon.As
you may know,there have been land instability and erosion problems with the San
RamoniTarapaca Canyon in the past,and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City")
has spent millions of dollars to mediate the situation.Despite the City's efforts,recent
rainfall has shown that land instability continues to be a problem.
I have seen the property on which the applicant desires to grade and have
reviewed various maps of the area.I strongly believe that no grading should be done on
the property.There is too much at stake for the residents of San Ramon Drive whose
property would be immediately affected by any problems.Additionally,a lot of taxpayer
funds have already been spent to mediate land instability problems in the San
RamoniTarapaca Canyon.I believe it is fiscally irresponsible to approve a risky project
that could lead to the City having to spend millions of more taxpayer dollars to fix future
problems caused by problems associated with land instability,erosion,and grading.
Please consider the danger to the families that live on San Ramon Drive and their
property.I respectfully request that you deny the application.
Sincerely,
71tudl1t~
Mark Matthews
9-67
PlANNING,BUILDING ANDJ 0.n,.::z '6/:2.0 (6
CODE ENFORCEMENT I
J6e..1 R~a.s)I
fJea'Se deny +-h e he;3 h+"
VC\r'l~~I~n o.Y)d Yn~o('9rQJln~
GfiPL C-Q-n';'n 0-+::2 70 (J -S
Su.n R0.mo n Dr,
CCR..SQ:NOZON ;)6c>9-D03CJb
-rha01J""you
(0..('\Kc..n c u..s e
D·clr\O-ncho ICL\Cl5 Ver es
~o ;2.7 .5
.,
•
9-68
PHONE (310)543-4623
DAVID R.BENCE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
21515 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD.SUITE 820
TORRANCE.CALIFORNIA 90503
February 1,2010
RECEIVED
FEB 02 2010
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
FAX (310)543-4464
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
RE:Case No.ZON2009-00396:
2700 ~San Ramon Drive,RPV
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I am counsel to Ms.Sara Dokter,a homeowner who
2700 San Ramon Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275.
resident of Rancho Palos Verdes.(My client has also
her own comment letters to the Commission.which I do
dupl icate.)
resides at
I am also a
provided
not wish to
The purpose of this letter is to comment on the above-
referenced matter that is scheduled to come before the Planning
Commission on February 9,2010.My client opposes this
application on the grounds that approval of the grading
application will be detrimental to public safety and to other
property.
1.Prior Application.The landowner herein made an
application in 2002 to construct a single-family home on this
parcel.His application was denied by the RPV staff at that
time.and the Planning Commission unanimously affirmed the denial
of the permit.
The 2002 application involved 505 cubic yards of
grading for construction of a 2494 sq.ft.residence.The 2009
application now requests 1500 cubic yards of grading in order to
construct a house containing 3463 sq.ft.on this unusually
shaped parcel.
Conclusions from the March 17,2003 Staff Report are
still applicable to the 2009 application.For example,"The
parcel slopes down in an easterly and southerly direction into
the San Ramon Canyon.
"Staff believes that there is insufficient
geotechnical evidence that this project will not modify the
existing conditions that would result in renewed activity in the
South Shores slide area that is immediately south of the subject
property.Thus,Staff believes that approval of the grading
application could be detrimental to the public safety and to
other property in the area."
308-01.1085
9-69
Members of the Planning Commission
Case No.ZON2009-00396
February 1,2010
Page 2
Staff denied the 2002 application with the following
conclusions:
'Staff believes that the grading application would be
detrimental to the public safety and to other property:that the
project is not consistent with the purpose and intent for grading
activity and will create a significant visual impact to the
surrounding properties:the proposed structure is not designed to
blend with the immediate neighborhood due to the height and
appearance of the two-story structure in an immediate
neighborhood that presents an appearance of one-story structures.
and the apparent bulk and mass of the project as viewed from the
Palos Verdes Drive East switchback and from the residences along
the rim of the San Ramon canyon:and the resulting grading will
appear to bench the hillside,elevate the existing topography and
will not blend into the natural topography of the site."
The Planning Commission unanimously affirmed the denial of
the grading permit on July 22,2003.
2.2009 Application.The 2009 application has relocated
the proposed residence to a more westerly position on the parcel.
However,the application increases the amount of necessary
grading and the size of the proposed residence.Moreover,the
proposed access to the site is still based on the construction of
a concrete driveway around my client's residence at 2700 San
Ramon Drive.The proposed new driveway is within the boundary of
an open-space hazard zone,directly overlooking San Ramon
Canyon.As the Planning Commission is well aware,there have been
landslide disturbances in San Ramon Canyon that have resulted in
material expenditures by the City.Thus,the significant amount
of disturbance to the existing topography that is contemplated by
this application should be examined in great detail to determine
if it would be detrimental to public safety and to other
property.
Besides danger from landsliding on the easterly side of the
parcel,there is also danger from the limited access to the site.
San Ramon Drive is a very steep street that will apparently be
used by all construction vehicles.Access to the construction
site is via a ten foot wide driveway easement,beginning at the
end of the cul-de-sac on San Ramon Drive.All construction
equipment would apparently travel within about two feet of my
client's residence on that driveway throughout the period of
construction.Please also note that at least three utility lines
extend across this driveway easement to my client's house.It is
my understanding that the City requires that all access roads 'be
clear to the sky.'
308-01.1085
9-70
Members of the Planning Commission
Case No.ZON2009-00396
February 1,2010
Page 3
The Declaration of Covenants.Conditions,and Restrictions
for the property require that all utilities serving the parcel
are to be underground,from the northwesterly corner of the
parcel.It is unclear from the application if this restriction
of the CC&R's will be followed by the applicant.
The 2003 Staff Report indicated that the proposed 2494 sq.
ft.residence was not designed to be compatible with the
neighborhood and that its bulk and mass did not allow it to blend
in with the hillside.The 2009 application seeks approval for a
house that is 50%larger in size,and its greater mass certainly
will not blend-in with the hillside site.
As a consequence of the proposed dangers inherent in this
application,the Planning Commission should deny the application.
Sincerely,
~~
David R.Bence
cc:So Kim,Ass't Planner
Sara Dokter
308-01,1085
9-71
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Greg Pfost
"So Kim";
FW:SO KIM
Tuesday,February 02,2010 11:57:46 AM
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost,AICP
Deputy Planning Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:psjense@aol.com [mailto:psjense@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday,February 02,2010 11:48 AM
To:planning@rpv.com
Subject:SO KIM
Dear So Kim,
I am writing in regards to mr.thompson appeal to grade and build the
residential house at 2702 San Ramon Dr,rpv,we are at 2702 San Ramon and we
will be effected by \
this decision,our drive way has to be used for Mr,thompson to drive big
trucks to build his house we absolutely oppose this act and it is not safe
to have a II that traffic to
enter that narrow drive way.thanks for your time sincerely DR,Steve jensen
and parvin jensen 2702 San Ramon Dr,(310-750-6899)
9-72
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
1/31/2010
sanramon1@verizon.net
sok@rpv.com;
Concerns over case No:ZON2009-00396
Tuesday,February 02,2010 1:02:47 PM
Joel Rojas,AICP
Director of Planing
So Kim,Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Gentlemen,
In reply to the letter you office sent out requesting comments or concerns
re:(case No:lON2009-00396)for a major grading application at 2700
1/2 San Ramon Drive.
I am concerned for the hillside stability with the proposed grading and
construction in this area.
In a description of this area by the CITY OF RANCO PALOS VERDES,it
describes "the instability of the canyon accelerating at an alarming
rate."(Flyer about the RPV roadway stabilization project.)
I would request that the city be able to provide an adequate factor-of-
safety against failure,before approving the project.
From the California Geological Survey 5/25/2007
"A landslide is any mass of earth or rock that slides,flows and/or falls downhill.Landslides can
affect land from a few square yards to hundreds of acres in area and can be a few feet to
hundreds of feet thick.Many factors can contribute to the formation of landslides aside from
rainfall,including improper construction or grading,earthquakes,weak or loose rock and soil,and
steep slopes.
"While the potential for landslides sometimes can be mitigated,many
times the best thing to do is to avoid building on or near them,"said CGS
Supervising Geologist Chuck Real,who oversees the mapping program."
9-73
Thank you for your Consideration.
2736 San Ramon,RVP.CA
9-74
From:Joel Rojas
To:sok@rpv.com;
Subject:FW: ZON2009-00396 2700 1/2 San Ramon Drive
Date:Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:28:14 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: gensar@cox.net [mailto:gensar@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:25 AM
To: pc@rpv.com
Subject: ZON2009-00396 2700 1/2 San Ramon Drive
Addendum to my letter dated February 1,2010
Regarding the silhouette: when the residents at 2701 were planning their
re-model, the city was so very strict in making sure that the silhouette
flags were taunt, tension tight and no sagging. In fact, they had to hire
their contractor back again to adjust these flags to give a proper
representation of the outline of the addition.
I have no idea the outline of this new building.
Sara Dokter
2700 San Ramon Drive.
9-75
From:Greg Pfost
To:"So Kim";
Subject:FW: case # zon2001-200213 Thompson proposal San Ramon Dr.
Date:Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:01:39 AM
Attachments:P1310006.JPG
P1310002.JPG
P1310004.JPG
P1310005.JPG
P1310005a.JPG
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost, AICP
Deputy Planning Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From: Southbay Barge [mailto:southbaybargeinc@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 11:36 PM
To: planning@rpv.com
Subject: case # zon2001-200213 Thompson proposal San Ramon Dr.
Dear Commissioners and Director Rojas,
We are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposal to grade and
build a residence on the property at 2700 ½ San Ramon Drive. A smaller
project in terms of cubic yards of grading and square footage of the
residence was denied several years ago for good reasons.
Many of the conditions such as San Ramon Canyon’s increased erosion and
sloughing in lower San Ramon canyon have become even more of a concern to
informed residents and city officials than in 2003. We feel that approval of
the project would be a detriment to public safety and to other properties in
the area, including ours. The conflicting geological information and
conditions in the canyon are quite troubling to us and if the project causes
problems what can the adversely impacted residents and city of RPV do to
remedy the situation? I’m sure we would see thoughtful chin stroking
followed by hunched shoulders and an “oh well” from Mr. Thompson and his
hired geological consultants. The city of RPV could be greatly embarrassed
9-76
and damaged given the well publicized problems with the Tarapaca landslide
and San Ramon canyon situation, and of course the lawsuits that inevitably
would follow.
Additionally, I was somewhat shocked and disappointed that the LA Fire
Department has deviated from its established 20’ access width requirement to
10’ for this residence. As you can see in the attached photos due to the
presence of a utility pole the access is actually less than 10’. This
reality combined with the fact that construction equipment and eventually
Thompsons vehicles will pass within 2’ of the exterior wall of the Doktors
residence is a detriment to public safety and other property.
We urge you to deny the subject case.
Bill Pratley and Maria Frusteri
2701 San Ramon Dr.
9-77
-
•
•
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
•
(
•
•
-
-
••
-
2701
9-78
9-79
9-80
9-81
••
•
•
•9-82
From:Joel Rojas
To:sok@rpv.com;
Subject:FW: ZON 2009-00396
Date:Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:52:17 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: gensar@cox.net [mailto:gensar@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:57 PM
To: pc@rpv.com
Subject: ZON 2009-00396
PLEASE DENY THE REQUEST FOR GRADING. THIS PROJECT REQUIRES TOO
MUCH SOIL
MOVEMENT.. SAN RAMON CANYON HAS COST OUR CITY, AND WILL
CONTINUE TO COST
OUR CITY. DO NOT ADD TO THE PROBLEM.
JOAN BIXLER
1828 VALLETA
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
9-83
From:Gregory Lash
To:pc@rpv.com;
cc:sok@rpv.com;
Subject:Fw: Case # ZON2009-
00396 2700 1/2 San Ramon drive / Thompson project
Date:Monday, February 01, 2010 11:38:24 PM
Attachments:DSCN0203.JPG
DSCN0197.JPG
DSCN0198.JPG
DSCN0199.JPG
DSCN0200.JPG
DSCN0201.JPG
DSCN0202.JPG
DSCN0197.JPG
Commissioners:
Since a staff report on this Application is not available yet, I will assume that the
applicant feels the PC's many concerns have been satisfied. In 2003,
Commissioners denied variances for a project on this site. I know you all are
aware, or will be soon, of the history of that Application, so I won't list the
many grounds for denial. Note however, among several issues troubling the
Commission in 2003, were the geology of the site, & the that project was deemed
not compatible in terms of "Bulk & Mass." Today, the geologic situation has
worsened, & the proposed home's square footage is bigger.
I don't believe the City can afford to repair the combined Tarapaca / San
Ramon Canyons & is rightly seeking Federal dollars - it is imprudent to
simultaneously consider grading on the edge of this canyon, right on the
boundaries of the ancient "South Shores Landslide." There are several existing
homes at the end of this cul de sac - all would be threatened if a slide was
triggered.
This grading affects most RPV residents - all who use PV Drive East would suffer
if this road were to become unsafe or un-usable. Geologists have warned the
City that the switchbacks are threatened. This was a concern when the project
was not allowed in 2003, & the canyon walls on both sides have visibly
worsened since then. Note the damage from the storm of 19Jan, 2010. (photos
attached). I am sure you are aware that the debris flow crossed 25th Street &
down into the Senior Mobile Home park below. I witnessed bulldozers clearing
9-84
mud & rocks from the alleys of the park.
I urge the Commissioners to visit this site. Access to the site is via a driveway
already shared by 2 homes, & narrows to 10 feet across between properties.
The equipment required for 1500 feet of grading, & any dirt removal, would have
to pass though this narrow opening.
Please consider Denying this Application, at least until the San Ramon /
Tarapaca Canyons has been repaired & stabilized.
Thank You,
Gregory Lash
Vivienne Nixon-Lash
2829 San Ramon Drive
RPV, CA 90275
9-85
9-86
9-87
9-88
9-89
9-90
9-91
9-92
9-93
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
,
2
0
1
0
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
J
o
e
l
R
o
j
a
s
,
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
o
f
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
R
E
:
Z
O
N
2
0
0
9
-
0
0
3
9
6
D
e
a
r
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
:
T
h
i
s
i
s
m
y
s
e
c
o
n
d
l
e
t
t
e
r
,
a
s
t
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
a
f
e
w
i
t
e
m
s
I
o
v
e
r
l
o
o
k
e
d
i
n
m
y
f
i
r
s
t
.
1
.
2
7
'
7
#
t
a
l
l
,
3
,
4
6
3
s
q
f
t
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
a
v
e
r
y
l
a
r
g
e
h
o
m
e
,
p
l
u
s
a
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
g
a
r
a
g
e
/
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
a
r
e
a
.
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
f
i
t
t
h
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
.
(
l
a
r
g
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
w
a
s
d
e
n
i
e
d
)
I
t
~
a
s
v
e
r
y
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
t
o
s
e
e
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
,
a
s
t
h
e
s
i
l
h
o
u
e
t
t
e
w
a
s
a
l
i
t
t
l
e
l
o
o
s
e
.
(
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
s
e
n
c
l
o
s
e
d
)
2
.
1
5
0
0
y
d
3
o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
m
o
r
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
w
a
s
d
e
n
i
e
d
.
T
h
i
s
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
,
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
t
h
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
t
a
k
e
p
l
a
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
s
l
o
p
e
,
i
s
v
e
r
y
d
a
n
g
e
r
o
u
s
.
I
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
h
a
s
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
f
o
r
a
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
l
o
a
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
T
a
r
a
p
a
c
a
S
l
i
d
e
a
r
e
a
.
D
o
y
o
u
t
h
i
n
k
w
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
c
i
t
y
,
i
f
w
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
n
e
w
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
?
3
.
T
h
e
r
e
c
e
n
t
s
t
o
r
m
f
o
r
c
e
d
2
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
b
e
c
l
o
s
e
d
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
m
u
d
s
l
i
d
i
n
g
d
o
w
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
i
s
c
a
n
y
o
n
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
c
o
s
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
a
l
o
t
o
f
m
o
n
e
y
.
4
.
T
h
e
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
,
o
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
,
i
s
a
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.
I
d
o
n
o
t
f
e
e
l
t
h
a
t
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
w
i
l
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
b
i
g
t
r
u
c
k
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
a
r
e
a
f
e
w
m
o
r
e
o
f
m
y
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
,
b
u
t
w
h
a
t
I
r
e
a
l
l
y
w
a
n
t
t
o
k
n
o
w
i
s
:
W
H
O
I
S
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
D
A
M
A
G
E
T
O
M
Y
H
O
M
E
?
I
f
t
h
i
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
,
w
h
o
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
d
a
m
a
g
e
d
u
e
t
o
v
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
b
i
g
t
r
u
c
k
s
r
u
m
b
l
i
n
g
d
o
w
n
t
h
e
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
(
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
y
c
a
n
g
e
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
)
,
f
r
9
m
a
n
y
c
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
o
r
s
l
i
d
i
n
g
d
u
e
t
o
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
?
T
h
a
n
k
y
o
u
f
o
r
y
o
u
r
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
i
s
m
a
t
t
e
r
,
a
n
d
I
a
s
k
t
h
a
t
y
o
u
d
o
n
o
t
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
i
s
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
.
S
i
n
c
e
r
e
l
y
,
/
,
-
-
.
_
-
.
.
<
/
/
/
'
.
,
/
-
)
:
t
,
~
.
.
~
-
r
>
.
.
'
'
'
'
'
'
-
;
'
a
i
a
'
~
l
>
o
k
t
e
r
2
7
0
0
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
P
.
S
.
T
h
e
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
a
l
l
s
t
a
t
e
t
e
r
m
s
l
i
k
e
:
u
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
u
n
d
e
r
n
o
r
m
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
;
i
f
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,
e
t
c
.
W
h
o
i
s
t
o
s
e
e
t
h
e
s
e
a
r
e
a
d
h
e
r
e
d
t
o
?
9
-
9
4
9
-
9
5
Mark Matthews
6304 Via Ciega
RPV, CA 90275
January 31, 2010
Mr. Joel Rojas
Director of Planning
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Mr. Rojas:
As a new resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, I am very concerned about the
application for height variation and major grading pertaining to the development of
property at 2700 ½ San Ramon Drive (Case Number ZON2009-00396). One of my
primary concerns is the instability of the land in and around the San Ramon Canyon. As
you may know, there have been land instability and erosion problems with the San
Ramon/Tarapaca Canyon in the past, and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the “City”)
has spent millions of dollars to mediate the situation. Despite the City’s efforts, recent
rainfall has shown that land instability continues to be a problem.
I have seen the property on which the applicant desires to grade and have
reviewed various maps of the area. I strongly believe that no grading should be done on
the property. There is too much at stake for the residents of San Ramon Drive whose
property would be immediately affected by any problems. Additionally, a lot of taxpayer
funds have already been spent to mediate land instability problems in the San
Ramon/Tarapaca Canyon. I believe it is fiscally irresponsible to approve a risky project
that could lead to the City having to spend millions of more taxpayer dollars to fix future
problems caused by problems associated with land instability, erosion, and grading.
Please consider the danger to the families that live on San Ramon Drive and their
property. I respectfully request that you deny the application.
Sincerely,
Mark Matthews
9-96
R
E
C
E
I
V
E
D
F
E
B
0
1
2
0
1
0
9
-
9
7
February 2, 2010
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Subject: Case no. ZON2001-200213 (2700 ½ San Ramon Drive)
Dear Honorable Commissioners and Director Rojas,
Once again, Mr. Thompson brings a proposed project for his property on San Ramon Drive, and
once again we strongly urge you to deny his case. His project, this time, is even more egregious
and more of a threat to public safety and other property. Instead of a 2494 square foot residence
he proposes a 3463 square foot residence and instead of 505 cubic yards of grading he proposes
1500 cubic yards of grading. Once again the City retained geologist has given conditional
approval for the project as was done for the previous project but once again we believe you
should deny the case in spite of the geological clearance. As we all know, geologists can have
differing opinions and as we all surely know land slippage and landslides can occur despite
clearances.
The City of Rancho Palos (all RPV residents) has spent and will spend a great deal of money
stabilizing this area including Palos Verdes Drive East. At least $4.5 million was spent
stabilizing San Ramon Canyon and we greatly appreciate these efforts. Estimates by RPV public
works officials to repair the Tarapaca landslide and buttress Palos Verdes Drive East are over
$10 million. The recent closings of PV Drive South/ 25th St. are but small glimpses of what will
happen. Where will the money come from for the repair? RPV officials are currently seeking
money for Tarapaca from all sources including the Federal government and I am told we have a
good chance with the Feds through stabilization money. I did not even mention the geological
issues surrounding the Marymount expansion. Please note how close Mr. Thompson’s property
is to Marymount.
I believe if this project is approved and Mr. Thompson goes forward it will no doubt have a
deleterious effect on RPV’s attempt to obtain money for the Tarapaca situation. A reasonable
person would ask “what are you thinking RPV”. On the one hand you are asking for assistance to
stabilize Tarapaca Canyon, Palos Verdes Drive East/South and on the other you are approving a
project that could exacerbate the situation. I am including the RPV fact sheet that is being used to
solicit support for the Tarapaca repair. I have shown the approximate location of the Thompson
property. Please note how close it is to the stabilization areas, it may be contiguous. I am also
attaching a presentation made to the City Council in November 2008. Please deny this project
and avoid potential safety and monetary losses to the City and its residents.
Respectfully,
Samuel S. Van Wagner Samuel S, Van Wagner
Susan K. Van Wagner Susan K, Van Wagner
9-98
Project Supporters (partial list):
• Roderick D. Wright, CA State Senator
• Alan Lowenthal, CA State Senator
• Bonnie Lowenthal, CA Assemblymember
• Don Knabe, LA County Supervisor
• Janice Hahn, LA City Councilmember
• Steve Wolowicz, RPV Mayor
• Thomas D. Long, RPV Mayor Pro Tem
• Brian Campbell, RPV Councilmember
• Anthony M. Misetich, RPV Councilmember
• Douglas W. Stern, RPV Councilmember
Aerial Overview. Erosion conditions are
accelerating; roadway failure is probable
with reconstruction impossible.
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles City
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) and Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS), are critical transportation routes within Rancho Palos
Verdes. Due to a sensitive location near unstable San Ramon Canyon, there is a strong probability of a catastrophic roadway
failure with the potential to take lives, destroy homes, cut off transportation, and limit access to crucial facilities.
THE PROBLEM
The erosion of San Ramon Canyon has accelerated at an alarming rate since
the 2005 storm events which resulted in a Presidential disaster declaration.
Geologists and engineers conclude that the instability translates into
probable roadway failure. The Canyon’s streambed is now only a mere 86’
from one of two hairpin turns on PVDE. Erosion of the bank will cause
complete roadway failure; reconstruction will be impossible. If PVDE is
rendered useless, it cannot be reconstructed, severely altering
transportation routes for emergency personnel and residents.
For PVDS, every storm event requires emergency response to keep the road
open. In a recent very dry year, emergency response was still necessary
eight times to remove silt and debris. If PVDS collapses, the debris flow will
endanger over 250 homes and 500 senior residents located roughly 270 feet
below San Ramon Canyon. Homes will be destroyed, residents will be at risk, and emergency operations will be severely
compromised.
VITAL TRANSPORTATION ROUTES and LIFE SAFETY
PVDE and PVDS are crucial roads for emergency evacuations, emergency service providers, and access to staging areas for
regional fire safety personnel. In addition, PVDE and PVDS are essential routes to government facilities and widely used
transportation networks.
Palos Verdes Drive East is one of only two access roads for a Federal
Aviation Administration’s communication facility; headquarters for air
traffic control computer technology managing some of the most
complex airspace in the country.
Palos Verdes Drive South is a vital transportation link for local residents
and contributes to the overall efficient circulation for through traffic to
the Coast Guard facilities at Point Vincente, the Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach, and Interstate 110.
The 43,000 residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and the entire population
of the Palos Verdes Peninsula depend on PVDE and PVDS for essential
transportation and safety needs. Roadway failures would compromise
immediate access for fire, police and emergency personnel, greatly increase commute times, destroy two vital
transportation links to government facilities, and significantly decrease economic revenue by limiting access to businesses,
local attractions and amenities, including world-class resorts.
THE SOLUTION
The Palos Verdes Drives East and Palos Verdes Drive South Roadway Stabilization Project involves planning, engineering,
environmental clearance and mitigation, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of significant drainage restoration work
to stabilize Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South. Total estimated cost of the project is $19.5 million.
Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Palos Verdes Drive East & Palos Verdes Drive South
Roadway Stabilization Project
9-99
Key Site Features
San Ramon Canyon. Instability of Canyon is accelerating
at alarming rate. Failure will severely impact local
circulation, economy, and emergency response.
Open space subject to wildfire hazard. PVDE provides
access to critical staging areas for emergency
personnel.
Stabilization Sites. Stabilize approximately one mile of
PVDE. PVDE cannot be reconstructed if Canyon fails.
Stabilize approximately 300 feet of PVDS. The two hairpin
turns on PVDE are less than 100 feet from the Canyon
edge. Actual construction work will occur in San Ramon
Canyon.
Over 250 homes and 500 senior residents in harm’s way.
Homes are located roughly 270 feet below San Ramon
Canyon.
Federal Aviation Administration communications
center located approximately 2.8 miles north of project
site. PVDE is only one of two access points to facility
that controls all Southern California airspace.
U.S. Coast Guard Facility located approximately 4.5
miles west of project site.
Ports of Long Angeles and Long Beach located
approximately 3.5 and 8.4 miles east of project site,
respectively.
Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Palos Verdes Drive East & Palos Verdes Drive South
Roadway Stabilization Project
Pacific Ocean
Palos Verdes
Drive East
Palos Verdes Drive
South/25th Street
9-100
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
/
T
A
R
A
P
A
C
A
25
TH
ST
R
E
E
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
/
T
A
R
A
P
A
C
A
25
TH
ST
R
E
E
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
O
R
Y
BR
I
E
F
I
N
G
FI
E
L
D
V
I
S
I
T
T
O
FO
L
L
O
W
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
O
R
Y
BR
I
E
F
I
N
G
FI
E
L
D
V
I
S
I
T
T
O
FO
L
L
O
W
9-101
1.
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
t
h
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
2.
D
i
r
e
c
t
s
t
a
f
f
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
a
sc
o
p
e
o
f
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
pr
e
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
2
5
t
h
St
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
g
r
o
u
n
d
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
1.
Re
c
e
i
v
e
t
h
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
2.
Di
r
e
c
t
s
t
a
f
f
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
a
sc
o
p
e
o
f
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
pr
e
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
2
5
t
h
St
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
g
r
o
u
n
d
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
9-102
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
a
s
a
“h
i
g
h
e
s
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
pr
o
j
e
c
t
”
b
y
C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
o
n
12
/
1
8
/
0
7
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
a
s
a
“h
i
g
h
e
s
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
pr
o
j
e
c
t
”
b
y
C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
o
n
12
/
1
8
/
0
7
PR
O
J
E
C
T
P
R
I
O
R
I
T
Y
PR
O
J
E
C
T
P
R
I
O
R
I
T
Y
9-103
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
s
a
Ta
c
t
i
c
a
l
G
o
a
l
b
y
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
n
06
/
0
8
/
0
9
t
o
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
y
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
0
8
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
s
a
Ta
c
t
i
c
a
l
G
o
a
l
b
y
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
n
06
/
0
8
/
0
9
t
o
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
y
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
0
8
Ta
c
t
i
c
a
l
G
o
a
l
Ta
c
t
i
c
a
l
G
o
a
l
9-104
Th
e
4
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
A
c
c
e
s
s
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
i
n
R
P
V
Th
e
4
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
A
c
c
e
s
s
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
i
n
R
P
V
PV
D
S
/
W
PV
D
S
/
W
PV
D
E
PV
D
E
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
Cr
e
s
t
Cr
e
s
t
Ar
e
a
o
f
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
9-105
•
Im
p
e
d
e
s
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
ac
c
e
s
s
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
•
Im
p
e
d
e
s
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
ac
c
e
s
s
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
CU
R
R
E
N
T
I
S
S
U
E
S
–
PU
B
L
I
C
C
O
N
C
E
R
N
CU
R
R
E
N
T
I
S
S
U
E
S
–
PU
B
L
I
C
C
O
N
C
E
R
N
•
25
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
i
s
b
l
o
c
k
e
d
se
v
e
r
a
l
t
i
m
e
s
a
y
e
a
r
du
e
t
o
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
•
25
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
i
s
b
l
o
c
k
e
d
se
v
e
r
a
l
t
i
m
e
s
a
y
e
a
r
du
e
t
o
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
•
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
•
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
9-106
25
th
ST
R
E
E
T
A
T
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
BL
O
C
K
E
D
I
N
2
0
0
8
S
T
O
R
M
E
V
E
N
T
25
th
ST
R
E
E
T
A
T
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
BL
O
C
K
E
D
I
N
2
0
0
8
S
T
O
R
M
E
V
E
N
T
9-107
•
Th
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
.
•
Th
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
.
•
Th
e
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
l
e
f
t
be
h
i
n
d
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
c
e
d
e
s
•
Th
e
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
l
e
f
t
be
h
i
n
d
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
c
e
d
e
s
•
Th
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
r
o
a
d
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
c
a
n
b
e
hi
g
h
l
y
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
a
n
n
o
y
i
n
g
–
T
h
i
s
i
s
wh
a
t
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
e
e
s
!
•
Th
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
r
o
a
d
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
c
a
n
b
e
hi
g
h
l
y
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
a
n
n
o
y
i
n
g
–
T
h
i
s
i
s
wh
a
t
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
e
e
s
!
CU
R
R
E
N
T
I
S
S
U
E
S
–
PU
B
L
I
C
C
O
N
C
E
R
N
CU
R
R
E
N
T
I
S
S
U
E
S
–
PU
B
L
I
C
C
O
N
C
E
R
N
9-108
SE
D
I
M
E
N
T
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
E
D
A
F
T
E
R
ON
E
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
S
T
O
R
M
E
V
E
N
T
2
0
0
8
SE
D
I
M
E
N
T
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
E
D
A
F
T
E
R
ON
E
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
S
T
O
R
M
E
V
E
N
T
2
0
0
8
Ro
a
d
b
l
o
c
k
e
d
–
i
n
a
“
d
r
y
”
y
e
a
r
!
Ro
a
d
b
l
o
c
k
e
d
–
i
n
a
“
d
r
y
”
y
e
a
r
!
9-109
RO
A
D
A
F
T
E
R
R
E
O
P
E
N
I
N
G
–
BE
F
O
R
E
C
L
E
A
N
U
P
RO
A
D
A
F
T
E
R
R
E
O
P
E
N
I
N
G
–
BE
F
O
R
E
C
L
E
A
N
U
P
9-110
Th
e
B
i
g
P
i
c
t
u
r
e
Th
e
B
i
g
P
i
c
t
u
r
e
We
m
u
s
t
l
o
o
k
a
t
t
h
e
W
h
o
l
e
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
wi
t
h
a
l
l
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
p
a
r
t
s
!
We
m
u
s
t
l
o
o
k
a
t
t
h
e
W
h
o
l
e
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
wi
t
h
a
l
l
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
p
a
r
t
s
!
25
th
St
r
e
e
t
25
th
St
r
e
e
t
Ta
r
a
p
a
c
a
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
Ta
r
a
p
a
c
a
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
Sw
i
t
c
h
-
ba
c
k
s
Sw
i
t
c
h
-
ba
c
k
s
Er
o
d
i
n
g
St
r
e
a
m
-
b
e
d
Er
o
d
i
n
g
St
r
e
a
m
-
b
e
d
Neighborhoods Neighborhoods
So
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
An
c
i
e
n
t
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
So
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
An
c
i
e
n
t
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
9-111
Ca
n
y
o
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Ca
n
y
o
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
In
l
e
t
Sy
s
t
e
m
a
n
d
De
b
r
i
s
B
a
s
i
n
In
l
e
t
Sy
s
t
e
m
a
n
d
De
b
r
i
s
B
a
s
i
n
Th
r
o
u
g
h
25
th
St
r
e
e
t
Th
r
o
u
g
h
25
th
St
r
e
e
t
25
th
St
r
e
e
t
to
O
c
e
a
n
25
th
St
r
e
e
t
to
O
c
e
a
n
CL
A
Mostly within RPV, includes County Entirely within City of LA, but on private land Within City of LA, in ROW Entirely within City of LA
Ta
r
a
p
a
c
a
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
Ta
r
a
p
a
c
a
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
Mostly within RPV, includes County
LA
C
St
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
C
a
n
y
o
n
RP
V
CL
A
SY
S
T
E
M
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
S
SY
S
T
E
M
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
S
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
9-112
•Hi
g
h
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
f
l
o
w
,
w
h
i
c
h
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
s
a
h
i
g
h
l
y
er
o
s
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
•Hi
g
h
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
f
l
o
w
,
w
h
i
c
h
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
s
a
h
i
g
h
l
y
er
o
s
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
CH
A
R
A
C
T
I
R
I
S
T
I
C
S
O
F
T
H
E
C
A
N
Y
O
N
CH
A
R
A
C
T
I
R
I
S
T
I
C
S
O
F
T
H
E
C
A
N
Y
O
N
•De
e
p
,
w
i
t
h
s
t
e
e
p
s
i
d
e
s
•De
e
p
,
w
i
t
h
s
t
e
e
p
s
i
d
e
s
•Na
r
r
o
w
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
a
n
d
a
s
t
e
e
p
g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
•Na
r
r
o
w
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
a
n
d
a
s
t
e
e
p
g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
•Wa
t
e
r
p
i
p
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
ar
e
a
a
t
t
h
e
s
t
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
•Wa
t
e
r
p
i
p
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
ar
e
a
a
t
t
h
e
s
t
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
•Fl
o
w
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
T
a
r
a
p
a
c
a
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
,
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
d
e
b
r
i
s
l
o
a
d
•Fl
o
w
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
T
a
r
a
p
a
c
a
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
,
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
d
e
b
r
i
s
l
o
a
d
•Sh
e
e
t
f
l
o
w
s
d
o
w
n
t
h
e
s
t
e
e
p
s
l
o
p
e
s
.
•Sh
e
e
t
f
l
o
w
s
d
o
w
n
t
h
e
s
t
e
e
p
s
l
o
p
e
s
.
9-113
PR
O
N
O
U
N
C
E
D
C
U
T
I
N
CA
N
Y
O
N
PR
O
N
O
U
N
C
E
D
C
U
T
I
N
CA
N
Y
O
N
9-114
ST
E
E
P
VE
R
T
I
C
A
L
SI
D
E
S
ST
E
E
P
VE
R
T
I
C
A
L
SI
D
E
S
9-115
HI
G
H
T
L
Y
E
R
O
D
I
B
L
E
HI
G
H
T
L
Y
E
R
O
D
I
B
L
E
9-116
TH
E
P
R
O
B
L
E
M
A
T
2
5
T
H
ST
R
E
E
T
TH
E
P
R
O
B
L
E
M
A
T
2
5
T
H
ST
R
E
E
T
9-117
Co
n
t
o
u
r
s
i
n
t
h
i
s
18
9
6
m
a
p
s
h
o
w
a
co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
ca
n
y
o
n
p
a
s
t
wh
e
r
e
2
5
th
street
is
n
o
w
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
Co
n
t
o
u
r
s
i
n
t
h
i
s
18
9
6
m
a
p
s
h
o
w
a
co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
ca
n
y
o
n
p
a
s
t
wh
e
r
e
2
5
th
street
is
n
o
w
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
C
O
N
T
O
U
R
S
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
C
O
N
T
O
U
R
S
9-118
Mobile
Ho
m
e
P
a
r
k
un
d
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
19
7
2
Mobile
Ho
m
e
P
a
r
k
un
d
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
19
7
2
Th
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
h
a
d
s
t
a
r
t
e
d
si
l
t
i
n
g
u
p
3
5
y
e
a
r
s
a
g
o
an
d
w
a
s
a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
th
e
p
i
p
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
o
b
i
l
e
ho
m
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
9-119
MO
V
I
N
G
SE
D
I
M
E
N
T
TO
W
A
R
D
2
5
TH
ST
R
E
E
T
2
0
0
8
MO
V
I
N
G
SE
D
I
M
E
N
T
TO
W
A
R
D
2
5
TH
ST
R
E
E
T
2
0
0
8
9-120
TH
E
P
R
O
B
L
E
M
A
T
2
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
TH
E
P
R
O
B
L
E
M
A
T
2
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
CR
O
S
S
-
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
T
H
R
O
U
G
H
T
H
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
OF
T
H
E
R
O
A
D
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
W
E
S
T
E
R
L
Y
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
R
o
a
d
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
F
l
o
w
St
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
P
i
p
e
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
30
’
–
4
0
’
D
e
e
p
Ca
n
y
o
n
9-121
TH
E
P
R
O
B
L
E
M
A
T
2
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
TH
E
P
R
O
B
L
E
M
A
T
2
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
Ro
a
d
W
i
d
e
n
e
d
Ro
a
d
W
i
d
e
n
e
d
CR
O
S
S
-
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
T
H
R
O
U
G
H
T
H
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
OF
T
H
E
R
O
A
D
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
W
E
S
T
E
R
L
Y
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
R
o
a
d
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
F
l
o
w
New inlet
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
S
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
P
i
p
e
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Ex
t
e
n
d
e
d
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
Revised Flow New Stream bed 9-122
TH
E
P
R
O
B
L
E
M
A
T
2
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
TH
E
P
R
O
B
L
E
M
A
T
2
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
Ro
a
d
W
i
d
e
n
e
d
Ro
a
d
W
i
d
e
n
e
d
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
R
o
a
d
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
F
l
o
w
New inlet
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
a
n
d
f
l
o
w
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
a
n
d
f
l
o
w
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
S
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
Silted up canyon Silted up canyon
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
P
i
p
e
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
Ex
t
e
n
d
e
d
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
Revised Flo w
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
i
n
l
e
t
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
s
i
l
t
i
n
g
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
i
n
l
e
t
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
s
i
l
t
i
n
g
CR
O
S
S
-
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
T
H
R
O
U
G
H
T
H
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
OF
T
H
E
R
O
A
D
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
W
E
S
T
E
R
L
Y
9-123
Ca
n
y
o
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Ca
n
y
o
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
In
l
e
t
Sy
s
t
e
m
a
n
d
De
b
r
i
s
B
a
s
i
n
In
l
e
t
Sy
s
t
e
m
a
n
d
De
b
r
i
s
B
a
s
i
n
Th
r
o
u
g
h
25
th
St
r
e
e
t
Th
r
o
u
g
h
25
th
St
r
e
e
t
25
th
St
r
e
e
t
to
O
c
e
a
n
25
th
St
r
e
e
t
to
O
c
e
a
n
CL
A
Ta
r
a
p
a
c
a
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
Ta
r
a
p
a
c
a
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
LA
C
9 RPV City Council deciding on canyon solutions X Separate from Canyon Section – not addressed at yet X No agreement, but within City of LA, (on private land)9 Interim solution by City of LA and County being pursued X No plans to address this in the foreseeable future
St
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
C
a
n
y
o
n
RP
V
LA
C
Ci
t
y
of
LA
AC
T
I
O
N
S
O
N
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
S
AC
T
I
O
N
S
O
N
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
S
9-124
•Mi
k
e
G
i
n
,
D
e
p
u
t
y
Su
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
o
f
t
h
e
Co
u
n
t
y
F
o
u
r
t
h
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
•Mi
k
e
G
i
n
,
D
e
p
u
t
y
Su
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
o
f
t
h
e
Co
u
n
t
y
F
o
u
r
t
h
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
k
e
n
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
25
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
k
e
n
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
25
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
•
RP
V
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
a
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
wi
t
h
C
i
t
y
o
f
L
A
a
n
d
t
h
e
Co
u
n
t
y
o
n
M
a
y
3
1
,
2
0
0
7
•
RP
V
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
a
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
wi
t
h
C
i
t
y
o
f
L
A
a
n
d
t
h
e
Co
u
n
t
y
o
n
M
a
y
3
1
,
2
0
0
7
9-125
•
Ci
t
y
o
f
L
A
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
t
e
r
i
m
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
t
2
5
th
St
r
e
e
t
•
Ci
t
y
o
f
L
A
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
t
e
r
i
m
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
t
2
5
th
St
r
e
e
t
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
k
e
n
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
25
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
k
e
n
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
25
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
•
Ha
v
e
m
e
t
w
i
t
h
C
i
t
y
o
f
L
A
a
n
d
Co
u
n
t
y
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
f
o
r
a
y
e
a
r
•
Ha
v
e
m
e
t
w
i
t
h
C
i
t
y
o
f
L
A
a
n
d
Co
u
n
t
y
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
f
o
r
a
y
e
a
r
•
Jo
i
n
t
l
y
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
a
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
Re
p
o
r
t
•
Jo
i
n
t
l
y
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
a
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
Re
p
o
r
t
•
RP
V
t
o
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
a
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
fo
r
t
h
e
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
C
a
n
y
o
n
•
RP
V
t
o
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
a
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
fo
r
t
h
e
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
C
a
n
y
o
n
9-126
IN
T
E
R
I
M
S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
A
T
2
5
TH
ST
R
E
E
T
B
Y
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
L
A
IN
T
E
R
I
M
S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
A
T
2
5
TH
ST
R
E
E
T
B
Y
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
L
A
9-127
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
:
RA
N
C
H
O
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
CA
N
Y
O
N
S
E
G
M
E
N
T
:
RA
N
C
H
O
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
Wh
a
t
a
r
e
t
h
e
ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
fo
r
R
P
V
?
Wh
a
t
a
r
e
t
h
e
ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
fo
r
R
P
V
?
Tarapaca Landslide Tarapaca LandslideCanyonCanyon
PV
D
E
Ha
i
r
p
i
n
Be
n
d
s
PV
D
E
Ha
i
r
p
i
n
Be
n
d
s
So
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
s
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
So
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
s
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
9-128
CA
N
Y
O
N
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S
CA
N
Y
O
N
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S
9-129
Th
e
h
a
i
r
p
i
n
b
e
n
d
s
o
n
P
V
D
E
a
r
e
l
e
s
s
th
a
n
1
0
0
-
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
e
d
g
e
Th
e
h
a
i
r
p
i
n
b
e
n
d
s
o
n
P
V
D
E
a
r
e
l
e
s
s
th
a
n
1
0
0
-
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
e
d
g
e
RA
N
C
H
O
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
H
O
R
E
S
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
RA
N
C
H
O
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
H
O
R
E
S
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
On
g
o
i
n
g
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
On
g
o
i
n
g
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
-
c
u
t
s
l
o
p
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
a
l
l
u
v
i
a
l
t
y
p
e
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
r
e
2
0
to
3
0
-
f
e
e
t
d
e
e
p
.
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
-
c
u
t
s
l
o
p
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
a
l
l
u
v
i
a
l
t
y
p
e
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
r
e
2
0
to
3
0
-
f
e
e
t
d
e
e
p
.
Th
e
d
e
e
p
e
r
t
h
e
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
be
c
o
m
e
s
,
t
h
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
e
co
n
c
e
r
n
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
l
o
p
e
st
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
Th
e
d
e
e
p
e
r
t
h
e
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
be
c
o
m
e
s
,
t
h
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
e
co
n
c
e
r
n
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
l
o
p
e
st
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
9-130
San Ramon Canyon San Ramon Canyon
PV
D
E
Sw
i
t
c
h
b
a
c
k
s
PV
D
E
Sw
i
t
c
h
b
a
c
k
s
PE
N
I
N
S
U
L
A
G
E
O
L
O
G
I
C
M
A
P
SO
U
T
H
S
H
O
R
E
S
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
PE
N
I
N
S
U
L
A
G
E
O
L
O
G
I
C
M
A
P
SO
U
T
H
S
H
O
R
E
S
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
9-131
St
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
Ca
n
y
o
n
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
SO
U
T
H
S
H
O
R
E
S
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
SO
U
T
H
S
H
O
R
E
S
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
So
u
t
h
Sh
o
r
e
s
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
So
u
t
h
Sh
o
r
e
s
La
n
d
s
l
id
e
LA
CO
U
N
T
Y
LA
CI
T
Y
RP
V
25
th
ST
R
E
E
T
Fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
pr
o
b
l
e
m
9-132
•OF
C
O
M
P
O
N
E
N
T
S
CA
N
Y
O
N
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
H
O
R
E
S
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S
SO
U
T
H
S
H
O
R
E
S
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
9-133
•T
h
e
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
•Th
e
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
RA
N
C
H
O
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
TA
R
A
P
A
C
A
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
RA
N
C
H
O
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
TA
R
A
P
A
C
A
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
•T
h
e
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
p
a
s
s
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
Ta
r
a
p
a
c
a
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
.
•Th
e
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
p
a
s
s
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
Ta
r
a
p
a
c
a
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
.
•T
h
e
T
a
r
a
p
a
c
a
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
So
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
s
L
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
.
•Th
e
T
a
r
a
p
a
c
a
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
So
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
s
L
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
.
•P
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
T
a
r
a
p
a
c
a
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
c
o
u
l
d
s
l
o
u
g
h
of
f
a
n
d
b
l
o
c
k
t
h
e
f
l
o
w
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
.
•Po
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
T
a
r
a
p
a
c
a
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
c
o
u
l
d
s
l
o
u
g
h
of
f
a
n
d
b
l
o
c
k
t
h
e
f
l
o
w
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
.
9-134
St
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
Ca
n
y
o
n
LA
CO
U
N
T
Y
LA
CI
T
Y
RP
V
25
th
ST
R
E
E
T
Fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
pr
o
b
l
e
m
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
TA
R
A
P
A
C
A
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
TA
R
A
P
A
C
A
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
Ac
t
i
v
e
Ta
r
a
p
a
c
a
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
Ac
t
i
v
e
Ta
r
a
p
a
c
a
La
n
d
s
l
id
e
9-135
Ac
t
i
v
e
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
Ac
t
i
v
e
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S 9-136
•OF
C
O
M
P
O
N
E
N
T
S
CA
N
Y
O
N
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S
TA
R
A
P
A
C
A
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S
TA
R
A
P
A
C
A
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
Sl
i
p
f
o
r
c
e
s
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
to
w
a
r
d
s
w
i
t
c
h
-
b
a
c
k
Sl
i
p
f
o
r
c
e
s
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
to
w
a
r
d
s
w
i
t
c
h
-
b
a
c
k
Er
o
s
i
o
n
of
b
a
n
k
Er
o
s
i
o
n
of
b
a
n
k
St
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
to
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
p
p
a
g
e
St
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
to
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
p
p
a
g
e
86
f
e
e
t
Ne
w
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
st
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
Ne
w
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
st
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
9-137
CA
N
Y
O
N
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S
TA
R
A
P
A
C
A
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S
TA
R
A
P
A
C
A
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
9-138
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
s
c
a
r
p
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
s
c
a
r
p
Sh
o
r
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
ha
i
r
p
i
n
t
o
e
d
g
e
o
f
c
a
n
y
o
n
Sh
o
r
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
ha
i
r
p
i
n
t
o
e
d
g
e
o
f
c
a
n
y
o
n
CA
N
Y
O
N
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S
TA
R
A
P
A
C
A
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
CA
N
Y
O
N
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S
TA
R
A
P
A
C
A
L
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
E
9-139
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
G
O
A
L
S
F
O
R
L
O
W
E
R
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
SO
L
U
T
I
O
N
G
O
A
L
S
F
O
R
L
O
W
E
R
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
•Ha
l
t
t
h
e
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
st
r
e
a
m
-
b
e
d
•Ha
l
t
t
h
e
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
st
r
e
a
m
-
b
e
d
•
Re
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
fa
i
l
u
r
e
a
n
d
l
i
m
i
t
t
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
d
e
b
r
i
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
•
Re
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
fa
i
l
u
r
e
a
n
d
l
i
m
i
t
t
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
d
e
b
r
i
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
•
St
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
s
w
i
t
c
h
b
a
c
k
s
/
A
n
c
i
e
n
t
S
o
u
t
h
Sh
o
r
e
s
L
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
•
St
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
s
w
i
t
c
h
b
a
c
k
s
/
A
n
c
i
e
n
t
S
o
u
t
h
Sh
o
r
e
s
L
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
•
Ke
e
p
v
i
t
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
t
o
R
a
n
c
h
o
Pa
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
o
p
e
n
-
P
V
D
E
a
s
t
/
P
V
D
So
u
t
h
•
Ke
e
p
v
i
t
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
t
o
R
a
n
c
h
o
Pa
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
o
p
e
n
-
P
V
D
E
a
s
t
/
P
V
D
So
u
t
h
•In
s
t
a
l
l
g
r
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
•In
s
t
a
l
l
g
r
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
9-140
•
Fi
l
l
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
b
o
t
t
o
m
t
o
f
o
r
m
p
i
p
e
b
e
d
d
i
n
g
•
Fi
l
l
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
b
o
t
t
o
m
t
o
f
o
r
m
p
i
p
e
b
e
d
d
i
n
g
•
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
u
b
-
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
p
i
p
e
•
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
u
b
-
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
p
i
p
e
•
In
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
ne
e
d
e
d
t
o
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
•
In
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
ne
e
d
e
d
t
o
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
•
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
n
a
r
m
o
r
e
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
ch
a
n
n
e
l
/
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
f
o
r
c
a
n
y
o
n
•
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
n
a
r
m
o
r
e
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
ch
a
n
n
e
l
/
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
f
o
r
c
a
n
y
o
n
•
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
i
n
l
e
t
d
e
v
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
ca
n
y
o
n
s
u
b
-
d
r
a
i
n
•
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
i
n
l
e
t
d
e
v
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
ca
n
y
o
n
s
u
b
-
d
r
a
i
n
•
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
n
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
•
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
n
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
CO
N
C
E
P
T
S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
CO
N
C
E
P
T
S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
9-141
•
Fi
l
l
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
b
o
t
t
o
m
to
f
o
r
m
p
i
p
e
b
e
d
d
i
n
g
•
Fi
l
l
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
b
o
t
t
o
m
to
f
o
r
m
p
i
p
e
b
e
d
d
i
n
g
•
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
u
b
-
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
p
i
p
e
•
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
u
b
-
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
p
i
p
e
•
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
n
ar
m
o
r
e
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
ch
a
n
n
e
l
/
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
f
o
r
c
a
n
y
o
n
•
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
n
ar
m
o
r
e
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
ch
a
n
n
e
l
/
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
f
o
r
c
a
n
y
o
n
•
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
i
n
l
e
t
de
v
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
c
a
n
y
o
n
s
u
b
-
d
r
a
i
n
•
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
i
n
l
e
t
de
v
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
c
a
n
y
o
n
s
u
b
-
d
r
a
i
n
9-142
•Ob
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
r
i
g
h
t
s
o
f
w
a
y
.
•Ob
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
r
i
g
h
t
s
o
f
w
a
y
.
RA
N
C
H
O
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
RA
N
C
H
O
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
•Ex
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
•Ex
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
•En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
•En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Th
i
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
:
Th
i
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
:
•Un
d
e
r
t
a
k
i
n
g
a
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
•Un
d
e
r
t
a
k
i
n
g
a
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
•In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
mo
n
i
t
o
r
s
•In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
mo
n
i
t
o
r
s
9-143
1.
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
t
h
e
u
p
-
d
a
t
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
2.
D
i
r
e
c
t
s
t
a
f
f
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
a
sc
o
p
e
o
f
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
pr
e
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
2
5
t
h
St
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
g
r
o
u
n
d
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
1.
Re
c
e
i
v
e
t
h
e
u
p
-
d
a
t
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
2.
Di
r
e
c
t
s
t
a
f
f
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
a
sc
o
p
e
o
f
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
pr
e
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
2
5
t
h
St
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
g
r
o
u
n
d
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
9-144
LE
T
S
G
O
T
O
TH
E
F
I
E
L
D
.
.
.
LE
T
S
G
O
T
O
TH
E
F
I
E
L
D
.
.
.
Me
e
t
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
–
On
P
V
D
S
a
t
C
i
t
y
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
–
On
P
V
D
S
a
t
C
i
t
y
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
9-145
BE
C
A
R
E
F
U
L
BE
C
A
R
E
F
U
L
!
9-146
NO
V
E
M
B
E
R
1
,
2
0
0
8
CI
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
ME
E
T
I
N
G
–
FI
E
L
D
T
R
I
P
NO
V
E
M
B
E
R
1
,
2
0
0
8
CI
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
ME
E
T
I
N
G
–
FI
E
L
D
T
R
I
P
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
/
T
A
R
A
P
A
C
A
25
TH
ST
R
E
E
T
CO
U
N
C
I
L
U
P
D
A
T
E
–
FI
E
L
D
V
I
S
I
T
SA
N
R
A
M
O
N
/
T
A
R
A
P
A
C
A
25
TH
ST
R
E
E
T
CO
U
N
C
I
L
UP
D
A
T
E
–
FI
E
L
D
V
I
S
I
T
9-147
Wa
l
k
i
n
g
o
n
3
5
-
f
e
e
t
d
e
p
t
h
o
f
la
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
d
e
b
r
i
s
f
i
l
l
e
d
i
n
ca
n
y
o
n
Wa
l
k
i
n
g
o
n
3
5
-
f
e
e
t
d
e
p
t
h
o
f
la
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
d
e
b
r
i
s
f
i
l
l
e
d
i
n
ca
n
y
o
n
9-148
St
a
f
f
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
d
w
a
r
f
e
d
b
y
sh
e
e
r
4
0
-
f
o
o
t
h
i
g
h
c
a
n
y
o
n
wa
l
l
s
St
a
f
f
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
d
w
a
r
f
e
d
b
y
sh
e
e
r
4
0
-
f
o
o
t
h
i
g
h
c
a
n
y
o
n
wa
l
l
s
9-149
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
ha
s
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
,
un
s
t
a
b
l
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
s
i
d
e
s
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
ha
s
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
,
un
s
t
a
b
l
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
s
i
d
e
s
9-150
Hi
k
i
n
g
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
T
a
r
a
p
a
c
a
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
D
e
b
r
i
s
Hi
k
i
n
g
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
T
a
r
a
p
a
c
a
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
D
e
b
r
i
s
9-151
6-
f
e
e
t
d
e
e
p
st
r
e
a
m
-
b
e
d
er
o
s
i
o
n
si
n
c
e
t
h
e
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
pa
l
m
s
st
a
r
t
e
d
gr
o
w
i
n
g
6-
f
e
e
t
d
e
e
p
st
r
e
a
m
-
b
e
d
er
o
s
i
o
n
si
n
c
e
t
h
e
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
pa
l
m
s
st
a
r
t
e
d
gr
o
w
i
n
g
9-152
Do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m
o
f
t
h
e
Ta
r
a
p
a
c
a
L
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
Do
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m
o
f
t
h
e
Ta
r
a
p
a
c
a
L
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
9-153
John A.Feyk
2727 San Ramon Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 January 2010
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Reference: Case No. ZON2009-00396
Gentlemen,
I and my neighbors are concerned that the South Shores landslide, which has been reactivated on
the east side of San Ramon Canyon, might be reactivated on the Canyon’s west side below San
Ramon Drive. It appears that the reactivation which has occurred is the result of heavy rains
rather than any direct human activity. Our concern has been that rains could do the same thing on
the side below our street. We are much more concerned now by of the proposal of extensive
grading and the addition of structural weight above the boundary where the ancient landslide
daylights.
Two borings have been performed in the area of proposed grading and building. The landslide
potential increases with the steepness of the strata’s dip (0° is flat and 90° is vertical) and with the
presence of a clay layer that serves as a lubricant when wet by heavy rain. At a depth between 43
feet 4 inches and 44 feet 3 inches, boring #1 discovered a bentonite clay layer. Fortuitously, the
dip of 24° is the least observed at any depth of this boring. In comparison, the dips are 29° at 41
feet and 40° at 52 feet.
Boring #2, which unlike boring #1 is located in the area of proposed house construction,
curiously stopped short of the bentonite layer. This boring stopped at a depth of only 25 feet, at
which depth the dip was found to be an alarming 60°.
There is simply inadequate geological data upon which to make an informed decision regarding
the risk of activating or reactivating a landslide. At the very minimum, bore samples to the
bentonite clay layer must be made at both ends of the proposed location of the structure.
Determination of the coefficient of friction of wet clay, the steepest dip of the strata adjacent to
the bentonite layer, and the weight per square foot of structure supported by this potential slip
plane will enable a reasonable estimate of factor of safety. Absent this information, there can be
no engineering basis for a decision on whether or not to permit grading and construction.
Sincerely,
Email: john.feyk@cox.net
Work tel: 310-416-1625
9-154
From:Joel Rojas
To:sok@rpv.com;
Subject:FW: Palos Verdes Drive East roadway stabilization project and case# ZON2009-
00396
Date:Monday, February 01, 2010 8:20:25 AM
From: Daniel Bernstein [mailto:suedanb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 10:43 AM
To: pc@rpv.com
Subject: Palos Verdes Drive East roadway stabilization project and case# ZON2009-
00396
Assistant Planner So Kim-
The proposed grading specified in case# ZON2009-00396 appears to be in
an area adjacent to the Palos Verdes Drive East roadway stabilization site.
Any grading near this site could result in a landslide which might close
Palos Verdes Drive East.
Daniel Bernstein- San Ramon Drive Homeowner
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
now.
9-155
From:Joel Rojas
To:sok@rpv.com;
Subject:FW: prevent another landslide
Date:Monday, February 01, 2010 8:20:58 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: 2pp@cox.net [mailto:2pp@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 4:09 PM
To: pc@rpv.com
Subject: prevent another landslide
attn. joel rojas. deny the height variation and major grading at 2700 1/2
san ramon dr.
9-156
J
o
h
n
A
.
F
e
y
k
2
7
2
7
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
,
C
A
9
0
2
7
5
2
2
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
0
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
C
i
t
y
o
f
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
3
0
9
4
0
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
B
l
v
d
.
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
,
C
A
9
0
2
7
5
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
:
C
a
s
e
N
o
.
Z
O
N
2
0
0
9
-
0
0
3
9
6
G
e
n
t
l
e
m
e
n
,
R
E
C
E
I
V
E
D
J
A
N
2
5
2
0
1
0
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
,
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
C
O
D
E
E
N
F
O
R
C
E
M
E
N
T
A
l
l
t
h
e
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
l
o
t
s
h
a
d
h
o
u
s
e
s
b
u
i
l
t
o
n
t
h
e
m
b
y
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
.
T
h
e
l
o
t
s
w
e
r
e
n
o
t
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
s
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
h
o
u
s
e
s
w
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
d
a
n
g
e
r
.
U
n
f
o
r
t
u
n
a
t
e
l
y
,
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
l
o
t
s
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
b
e
f
o
r
e
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
w
a
s
f
o
r
m
e
d
.
I
t
i
s
r
e
g
r
e
t
t
a
b
l
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
i
s
s
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
w
a
s
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
f
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
m
u
s
t
n
o
t
b
e
f
o
r
c
e
d
t
o
a
c
c
e
p
t
t
h
e
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
d
a
n
g
e
r
a
n
d
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
r
i
s
k
t
h
a
t
a
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
m
i
g
h
t
b
e
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
e
d
b
y
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
t
h
e
w
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
o
c
l
o
s
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
n
c
i
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
a
t
2
7
0
0
Y
z
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
.
I
n
t
h
e
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
a
r
e
a
,
a
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
l
i
p
p
l
a
n
e
s
o
c
c
u
r
s
w
h
e
r
e
l
a
y
e
r
s
o
f
r
o
c
k
s
t
r
a
t
a
a
r
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
a
l
a
y
e
r
o
f
b
e
n
t
o
n
i
t
e
c
l
a
y
.
O
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
l
a
y
e
r
s
o
f
r
o
c
k
s
t
r
a
t
a
i
s
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
b
y
m
y
m
a
i
l
b
o
x
.
U
s
i
n
g
m
y
B
r
u
n
t
o
n
P
o
c
k
e
t
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
I
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
d
i
p
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
t
r
a
t
u
m
t
o
b
e
4
0
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
(
8
4
%
g
r
a
d
e
)
.
T
h
i
s
s
t
e
e
p
a
n
g
l
e
m
a
y
b
e
a
l
o
c
a
l
a
n
o
m
a
l
y
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
7
0
f
e
e
t
u
p
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
s
t
r
a
t
u
m
i
s
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
a
n
d
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
3
0
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
(
5
8
%
g
r
a
d
e
)
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
v
a
r
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
s
o
f
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
a
n
y
s
l
i
d
e
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
l
y
b
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
h
a
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t
d
i
p
.
T
h
e
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
m
a
y
o
r
m
a
y
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
s
a
m
p
l
e
d
t
h
e
s
t
e
e
p
e
s
t
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
l
i
p
p
l
a
n
e
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
p
o
i
n
t
i
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
s
o
n
l
y
a
n
e
x
p
e
r
t
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
a
n
d
n
o
t
i
n
a
n
y
w
a
y
a
g
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
o
f
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
a
s
l
i
d
e
o
c
c
u
r
.
I
n
f
a
c
t
,
t
h
e
f
i
n
e
p
r
i
n
t
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
'
s
b
o
t
t
o
m
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
s
n
o
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
l
y
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
i
n
a
n
y
w
a
y
i
f
h
i
s
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
t
u
r
n
s
o
u
t
t
o
b
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
r
y
t
o
f
a
c
t
.
T
h
a
t
i
s
t
h
e
c
r
u
x
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
t
t
e
r
.
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
n
o
r
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
i
s
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
l
y
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
a
m
a
s
s
i
v
e
s
l
i
d
e
b
e
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
e
d
.
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
I
e
m
p
h
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
d
o
n
o
t
w
i
s
h
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
y
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
m
u
s
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
/
o
r
a
n
y
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
o
w
n
e
r
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
t
o
u
n
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
e
a
l
l
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
i
f
a
s
l
i
d
e
o
c
c
u
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
m
u
s
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
l
l
d
a
m
a
g
e
s
.
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
D
o
k
t
e
r
h
o
u
s
e
m
i
g
h
t
b
e
t
h
e
o
n
l
y
o
n
e
t
o
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
d
a
m
a
g
e
,
a
l
l
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
l
o
s
s
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
d
r
o
p
i
n
r
e
s
a
l
e
v
a
l
u
e
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
o
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
s
l
i
d
e
.
I
f
s
u
c
h
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
o
e
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
o
r
f
o
u
n
d
t
o
b
e
u
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
,
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
m
u
s
t
n
o
t
f
o
r
c
e
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
t
o
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
r
i
s
k
t
h
a
t
i
s
u
n
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
o
r
t
o
o
i
n
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
b
l
e
t
o
b
e
i
n
s
u
r
a
b
l
e
.
S
i
n
c
e
r
e
l
y
,
E
m
a
i
l
:
j
o
h
n
.
f
e
y
k
@
c
o
x
.
n
e
t
W
o
r
k
t
e
l
:
3
1
0
-
4
1
6
-
1
6
2
5
9
-
1
5
7
T
H
E
L
O
T
K
N
O
W
N
A
S
2
7
0
0
%
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
b
y
S
a
r
a
D
o
k
t
e
r
2
7
0
0
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
T
H
I
S
I
S
W
H
A
T
H
A
P
P
E
N
E
D
W
H
E
N
A
p
m
C
E
O
F
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
C
A
M
E
D
O
W
N
M
Y
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
•
•
.
•
•
I
T
C
L
I
P
P
E
D
O
F
F
T
H
E
C
O
R
N
E
R
O
F
T
H
E
R
O
O
F
.
I
C
O
N
T
A
C
T
E
D
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
I
M
M
E
D
I
A
T
E
L
Y
,
A
S
A
T
T
H
I
S
T
I
M
E
(
I
N
T
H
E
7
0
'
S
)
T
H
E
R
E
W
A
S
T
O
B
E
N
O
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
O
N
T
H
I
S
L
O
T
.
T
H
E
R
E
W
A
S
N
O
N
E
D
O
N
E
A
T
T
H
I
S
T
I
M
E
.
¥
'
M
l
t
:
1
f
i
;
/
N
D
B
O
U
G
H
T
T
H
E
L
O
T
I
N
T
H
E
7
0
'
S
,
S
I
G
H
T
U
N
S
E
E
N
,
H
E
K
N
O
C
K
E
D
O
N
M
Y
D
O
O
R
O
N
E
M
O
R
N
I
N
G
W
H
I
L
E
M
Y
N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
A
N
D
I
W
E
R
E
H
A
V
I
N
G
C
O
F
F
E
E
A
N
D
A
S
K
E
D
M
E
:
W
H
A
T
A
R
E
Y
O
U
D
O
I
N
G
H
E
R
E
?
?
?
?
H
E
T
H
O
U
G
H
T
H
E
H
A
D
B
O
U
G
H
T
T
H
E
W
H
O
L
E
P
A
R
C
E
L
,
N
O
T
R
E
A
L
I
Z
I
N
G
T
H
A
T
T
H
E
L
O
T
H
A
D
B
E
E
N
S
P
L
I
T
.
H
E
T
H
E
N
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
E
D
T
O
A
C
Q
U
I
R
I
N
G
2
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
L
O
A
N
S
O
N
T
H
E
L
O
T
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A
N
D
T
H
E
N
S
O
L
D
I
T
.
T
H
I
S
I
S
A
N
A
N
C
I
E
N
T
S
L
I
D
E
A
R
E
A
,
I
F
Y
O
U
L
O
O
K
A
T
T
H
E
A
R
E
A
B
E
L
O
W
T
H
I
S
L
O
T
,
Y
O
U
C
A
N
S
E
E
(
(
S
O
M
E
T
H
I
N
G
"
G
O
I
N
G
O
N
.
L
O
O
K
A
C
R
O
S
S
T
H
E
.
C
A
N
Y
O
N
,
A
N
D
Y
O
U
C
A
N
S
E
E
"
A
L
O
T
"
G
O
I
N
G
O
N
.
M
Y
Q
U
E
S
T
I
O
N
I
S
,
H
O
W
C
A
N
T
H
E
G
R
O
U
N
D
C
B
A
N
G
E
•
•
•
•
•
H
O
W
C
A
N
T
H
E
R
E
B
E
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
N
O
W
,
A
N
D
N
O
T
I
N
T
H
E
P
A
S
T
?
B
O
I
S
E
C
A
S
C
A
D
E
D
I
D
C
O
R
E
S
A
M
P
L
E
S
O
N
T
H
I
S
H
I
L
L
S
I
D
E
F
O
R
O
V
E
R
2
0
Y
E
A
R
S
,
A
N
D
D
I
D
N
O
T
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
T
H
I
S
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
.
G
R
I
S
W
O
L
D
A
N
D
S
O
N
S
,
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
E
R
O
F
T
H
I
S
T
R
A
C
T
D
I
D
N
O
T
B
U
I
L
D
O
N
T
H
I
S
L
O
T
.
.
.
•
•
.
W
H
Y
?
?
?
?
?
?
I
H
A
V
E
L
I
V
E
D
I
N
T
H
I
S
H
O
U
S
E
F
O
R
4
6
Y
E
A
R
S
,
A
N
D
D
O
N
O
T
W
A
N
T
T
O
H
A
V
E
C
R
A
C
K
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
S
,
A
N
D
S
L
I
D
I
N
G
P
R
O
B
L
L
E
M
8
.
9
-
1
5
8
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
0
M
r
.
J
o
e
l
R
o
j
a
s
,
A
I
C
P
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
o
f
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
C
o
d
e
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
3
0
9
4
0
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
,
C
A
9
0
2
7
5
R
e
:
C
a
s
e
N
o
.
Z
O
N
2
0
0
9
-
0
0
3
9
6
2
7
0
0
1
1
2
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
h
i
c
h
r
u
n
s
a
l
o
n
g
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
f
f
a
r
a
p
a
c
a
C
a
n
y
o
n
)
D
e
a
r
M
r
.
R
o
j
a
s
:
I
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
y
o
u
r
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
1
,
2
0
0
9
n
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
a
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
t
o
(
l
)
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
3
,
4
6
3
s
q
/
f
t
t
w
o
s
t
o
r
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
(
2
)
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
1
,
5
0
0
s
q
l
f
t
o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
(
3
)
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
3
.
5
'
a
n
d
a
n
8
'
t
a
l
l
r
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
a
n
d
a
7
'
t
a
l
l
r
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
,
m
a
y
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
b
e
k
n
o
w
n
:
1
.
T
h
i
s
p
a
r
c
e
l
w
a
s
b
o
u
g
h
t
b
y
M
r
.
M
a
n
d
e
l
i
n
t
h
e
7
0
'
s
,
s
i
g
h
t
u
n
s
e
e
n
.
H
e
d
i
d
n
o
t
r
e
a
l
i
z
e
t
h
a
t
h
e
h
a
d
b
o
u
g
h
t
o
n
l
y
"
p
a
r
t
"
o
f
t
h
e
l
o
t
H
e
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
e
d
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
w
a
s
u
n
a
b
l
e
t
o
a
n
d
j
i
n
a
l
l
y
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
l
o
a
n
s
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
u
p
t
h
e
p
r
i
c
e
o
f
t
h
i
s
l
o
t
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
i
s
n
o
t
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
2
.
G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
t
a
k
e
n
:
a
.
B
o
i
s
e
C
a
s
c
a
d
e
d
r
i
l
l
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
f
o
r
t
h
e
j
i
r
s
t
2
0
y
e
a
r
s
w
e
l
i
v
e
d
h
e
r
e
.
T
h
e
y
d
i
d
n
o
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
b
.
G
r
i
s
w
o
l
d
&
S
o
n
s
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
e
r
o
f
t
h
i
s
t
r
a
c
t
d
i
d
n
o
t
b
u
i
l
d
d
o
w
n
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
a
r
e
a
s
o
n
.
c
.
B
e
d
r
o
c
k
w
a
s
r
e
a
c
h
e
d
a
t
7
5
p
l
u
s
f
e
e
t
,
t
h
i
s
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
C
a
s
i
s
s
o
n
S
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
f
a
n
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
w
a
s
t
o
b
e
d
o
n
e
.
d
.
A
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
M
r
.
M
a
n
d
e
l
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
t
h
e
o
n
l
y
b
u
i
l
d
a
b
l
e
a
r
e
a
w
a
s
o
n
t
h
e
N
o
E
.
a
r
e
a
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
p
l
a
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
s
e
w
e
r
l
i
n
e
A
N
D
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
N
O
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
.
3
.
T
h
e
g
o
u
n
d
i
s
v
e
r
y
u
n
s
t
a
b
l
e
(
l
o
o
k
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
)
t
h
e
T
a
r
a
p
a
c
a
s
l
i
d
e
,
t
h
e
s
e
s
t
a
r
t
e
d
a
s
v
e
r
y
s
m
a
l
l
s
l
i
d
e
s
,
t
h
e
y
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
g
r
o
w
l
U
p
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
i
s
t
h
e
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
C
a
n
y
o
n
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
o
w
n
i
s
t
h
e
a
n
c
i
e
n
t
s
l
i
d
e
a
r
e
a
.
T
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
a
r
e
a
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
b
e
d
o
n
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
i
s
t
h
e
s
t
e
e
p
e
s
t
4
.
A
b
u
y
e
r
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
w
a
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
h
e
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
,
a
n
d
w
h
a
t
h
i
s
o
p
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
5
.
R
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
o
f
L
o
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
r
e
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
(
C
C
&
R
'
s
)
A
r
e
t
h
e
y
b
e
i
n
g
a
d
h
e
r
e
d
t
o
?
6
.
T
h
e
1
0
f
o
o
t
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
t
h
i
s
s
i
t
e
i
s
v
e
r
y
l
o
n
g
a
n
d
g
o
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
s
i
d
e
o
f
m
y
h
o
m
e
,
a
t
o
n
e
p
o
i
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
2
4
i
n
c
h
e
s
(
p
l
e
a
s
e
s
e
e
e
n
c
l
o
s
e
d
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
)
.
A
l
e
t
t
e
r
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
i
s
9
-
1
5
9
e
n
c
l
o
s
e
d
s
t
a
t
i
n
g
a
2
0
'
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
n
a
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
l
i
k
e
t
h
i
s
.
W
h
a
t
i
s
o
u
r
c
i
t
i
e
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
?
7
.
O
n
c
i
t
y
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
a
t
t
h
e
c
u
l
-
d
e
-
s
a
c
,
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
o
u
r
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
/
p
o
w
e
r
p
o
l
e
t
h
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
a
b
o
u
t
t
w
o
f
e
e
t
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
1
0
f
t
.
w
i
d
e
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
t
h
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
2
7
0
0
*
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
.
8
.
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
m
a
i
l
b
o
x
e
s
,
g
a
r
b
a
g
e
c
a
n
s
,
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
s
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
a
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
i
n
c
e
o
u
r
c
u
l
-
d
e
-
s
a
c
i
s
s
o
s
m
a
l
L
9
.
W
i
t
h
t
h
e
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
/
T
a
r
a
p
a
c
a
s
l
i
d
e
(
t
h
e
t
r
e
m
e
n
d
o
u
s
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
m
o
n
e
y
i
t
h
a
s
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
c
o
s
t
o
u
r
t
a
x
p
a
y
e
r
s
)
w
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
w
a
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
l
i
d
e
s
.
1
0
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
u
n
s
t
a
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
c
a
n
w
e
a
f
f
o
r
d
t
o
t
a
k
e
a
c
h
a
n
c
e
?
?
?
?
A
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
p
u
l
l
i
n
g
a
d
i
s
c
h
a
s
i
n
p
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
s
c
l
e
a
r
e
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
b
e
l
o
w
m
e
(
w
e
e
d
a
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
)
a
l
l
t
h
e
,
w
a
y
d
o
w
n
t
o
P
.
V
.
D
r
i
v
e
e
a
s
t
.
T
h
e
d
i
s
c
i
s
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
d
,
a
s
i
t
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
s
t
h
e
s
o
i
l
t
o
o
m
u
c
h
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
w
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
d
o
?
?
?
?
W
E
H
A
V
E
O
N
E
Q
U
E
S
T
I
O
N
:
W
H
O
i
s
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
o
u
r
h
o
m
e
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
i
f
t
h
e
e
a
r
t
h
s
h
o
u
l
d
m
o
v
e
d
u
e
t
o
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
W
e
a
s
k
y
o
u
t
o
n
o
t
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
i
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
S
a
r
a
D
o
k
t
e
r
2
7
0
0
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
E
n
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
:
1
.
S
u
r
v
e
y
o
f
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
2
.
P
i
c
t
u
r
e
s
o
f
r
o
o
f
3
.
C
C
&
R
'
s
4
.
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
C
a
n
y
o
n
.
s
:
~
~
P
.
S
.
W
h
a
t
a
r
e
t
h
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
t
h
i
s
s
i
t
e
f
r
o
m
P
.
V
.
D
r
i
v
e
E
a
s
t
?
c
c
:
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
o
n
e
r
s
9
-
1
6
0
M
I
L
.
T
O
N
B
R
E
I
V
O
G
E
L
.
\
D
I
R
E
C
T
O
R
O
F
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
O
.
K
.
C
H
R
I
S
T
E
N
S
O
N
C
H
I
E
F
D
E
P
U
T
Y
D
I
R
E
C
T
O
R
C
O
U
N
T
Y
O
F
L
O
S
A
N
G
E
L
E
S
T
H
E
R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
3
2
0
W
E
S
T
T
E
M
P
L
.
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
L
.
O
S
A
N
G
E
L
.
E
S
.
C
A
L
.
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
0
0
1
2
T
E
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
6
2
8
-
9
2
1
I
M
a
r
c
h
2
8
,
1
9
6
7
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
R
S
M
R
S
.
L
.
S
.
B
A
C
A
C
H
A
I
R
M
A
N
L
O
U
I
S
K
A
N
A
S
T
E
R
V
I
C
E
.
C
H
A
I
R
M
A
N
A
L
S
O
N
E
.
A
B
E
R
N
E
T
H
Y
A
R
T
H
U
R
J
.
B
A
U
M
O
W
E
N
H
.
L
E
W
I
S
I
R
M
A
R
U
T
H
E
R
S
E
C
R
E
T
A
R
Y
T
O
T
H
E
C
O
M
M
i
S
S
i
O
N
M
r
.
a
n
d
M
r
s
.
G
e
n
e
D
o
k
t
e
r
2
7
0
0
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
S
a
n
P
e
d
r
o
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
a
r
M
r
.
a
n
d
M
r
s
.
D
o
k
t
e
r
:
1
/
R
E
:
L
O
T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
O
F
L
O
T
1
8
,
T
R
A
C
T
2
5
0
5
1
,
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
A
T
2
7
0
0
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
,
S
A
N
P
E
D
R
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
I
n
r
e
p
l
y
t
o
y
o
u
r
l
e
t
t
e
r
o
f
M
a
r
c
h
2
1
,
1
9
6
7
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
P
l
o
t
P
l
a
n
N
o
.
9
7
5
1
,
d
a
t
e
d
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
,
1
9
6
7
,
w
a
s
d
e
n
i
e
d
b
y
t
h
i
s
o
f
f
i
c
e
d
u
e
t
o
i
n
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
w
i
d
t
h
.
A
2
0
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
t
h
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
i
n
g
r
e
s
s
a
n
d
e
g
r
e
s
s
t
o
s
e
r
v
e
t
w
o
t
o
f
o
u
r
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
I
f
w
e
m
a
y
b
e
o
f
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
p
l
e
a
s
e
c
a
l
l
o
u
r
o
f
f
i
c
e
s
a
t
6
2
8
-
9
2
1
1
,
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
6
3
7
0
3
.
V
e
r
y
t
r
u
l
y
y
o
u
r
s
,
T
H
E
R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
M
i
l
t
o
n
B
r
e
i
v
o
g
e
l
,
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
o
f
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
~
~
~
~
_
.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
J
.
B
a
r
~
w
'
,
v
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
C
h
i
e
f
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
s
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
F
J
B
:
R
H
C
:
m
n
9
-
1
6
1
c
.
.
,
.
J
I
I
I
3
7
8
1
·
~
~
M
f
Z
G
O
F
q
2
7
7
R
E
C
O
f
l
O
f
.
D
I
N
(
}
f
F
!
C
I
A
L
R
E
C
O
R
D
S
"
L
O
S
A
N
G
E
l
.
E
S
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
C
A
L
I
F
•
•
F
O
R
T
I
T
l
.
£
I
N
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
:
8
c
T
R
U
S
T
C
O
.
.
)
l
)
M
I
l
L
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
~
P
a
s
t
1
0
A
M
.
M
A
Y
7
1
9
6
3
p
~
.
R
A
Y
E
.
L
E
E
.
C
o
u
n
t
y
~
c
~
r
t
i
.
.
.
.
.
I
T
:
:
.
.
'
~
r
)
d
s
1
·
1
1
1
1
C
f
l
r
'
t
U
'
y
t
n
n
t
.
t
h
e
'
f
.
'
o
1
1
o
u
l
n
g
d
e
s
c
r
i
w
e
<
t
p
;
r
o
p
e
r
'
t
y
.
h
o
r
e
l
n
a
f
t
e
r
l
r
.
h
o
w
n
i
!
~
;
·
1
"
'
.
3
,
r
\
m
"
J
\
.
i
:
l
~
·
h
(
]
i
.
n
p
:
p
u
r
c
l
1
n
c
H
H
l
f
r
o
m
H
i
c
h
a
r
c
L
1
;
l
.
W
:
q
.
l
:
i
.
r
o
n
s
n
n
d
Y
v
e
t
t
o
.
A
.
1
h
l
H
a
n
w
.
1
1
y
G
e
n
e
Y
.
D
o
k
t
e
r
a
n
d
i
3
a
r
~
J
~
.
D
o
l
l
:
t
c
r
,
r
n
A
n
:
x
l
.
l
1
c
l
f
i
n
d
1
·
r
:
i
.
.
:
l
'
e
a
s
.
,
j
o
i
n
t
t
e
n
a
n
t
s
:
.
T
h
a
t
p
o
r
U
o
n
o
f
L
o
t
l
i
:
)
o
f
~
.
'
r
a
c
t
2
)
0
'
5
1
.
i
n
t
c
o
u
n
t
;
)
f
o
:
f
l
o
!
l
'
l
\
n
g
r
\
c
.
:
s
)
S
t
n
t
c
~
o
J
.
'
G
n
:
(
.
:
l
f
o
r
n
i
n
.
·
a
s
p
c
r
m
.
a
p
r
e
c
o
r
d
c
\
l
:
i
.
n
l
x
>
o
k
G
i
f
9
;
p
a
g
E
'
s
B
6
t
o
f
}
9
o
f
m
a
p
s
,
I
n
t
h
~
o
f
f
.
t
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
r
e
c
o
r
d
.
e
1
'
o
f
s
a
i
c
l
c
o
u
n
t
y
:
d
.
c
s
c
r
i
b
e
c
1
.
a
r
c
:
1
'
o
1
1
m
r
8
:
B
e
[
.
.
;
i
r
m
i
n
g
a
t
a
'
P
o
i
r
:
t
i
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
b
e
r
l
y
~
l
i
n
e
o
f
s
a
i
d
L
o
t
1
8
,
d
i
s
t
.
a
n
t
a
l
o
n
g
s
a
:
L
d
.
U
O
r
t
.
'
.
l
C
l
·
1
.
y
!
_
:
L
l
1
e
.
:
.
r
1
o
:
.
.
~
t
h
7
3
°
4
~
'
.
0
5
'
;
H
c
:
n
t
4
2
5
.
4
·
4
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
i
:
;
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
8
1
3
.
1
(
1
.
l
o
t
.
:
t
h
e
n
c
e
S
o
u
t
h
'
1
6
~
1
1
'
5
5
"
v
T
e
s
t
l
0
.
0
0
f
e
e
t
;
t
h
e
n
c
e
S
o
u
t
h
5
0
0
~
O
'
1
6
"
E
a
s
t
5
0
.
1
7
f
e
e
t
;
t
h
e
n
c
e
S
o
u
t
h
1
3
°
1
5
t
J
.
~
H
e
s
t
5
0
.
0
0
f
e
e
t
;
'
\
:
;
)
1
c
n
c
c
:
"
'
,
o
u
t
h
7
9
°
5
3
'
3
6
"
1
v
e
s
t
1
5
7
.
7
4
f
e
e
t
t
o
a
~
.
'
o
l
i
1
t
I
n
t
h
e
'
I
l
O
s
t
e
r
]
:
,
;
r
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
o
f
'
s
a
1
3
.
l
o
t
)
.
8
c
1
:
r
.
s
~
a
n
t
a
l
o
n
g
R
a
i
d
w
e
s
t
c
r
J
,
y
b
o
u
n
d
a
.
r
y
N
q
r
t
h
1
3
°
1
5
I
I
I
I
I
'
l
!
i
a
s
t
1
0
0
.
'
(
1
f
e
f
J
t
f
:
'
0
'
1
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
o
o
u
t
h
c
r
J
y
c
o
r
m
e
r
0
'
[
'
t
l
a
i
d
l
o
t
)
t
h
e
n
c
e
a
:
L
o
n
g
s
a
i
d
1
v
e
s
t
c
r
l
y
b
0
1
.
:
n
i
l
i
l
.
r
y
.
N
o
r
t
.
h
1
3
°
1
5
'
1
)
+
"
E
a
s
t
1
4
0
f
e
e
t
t
o
a
n
a
n
g
l
e
J
?
o
i
r
~
t
i
n
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
l
y
'
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
l
i
n
e
o
f
s
a
i
d
l
o
t
t
p
.
e
n
c
e
a
l
o
n
g
a
:
;
s
o
u
t
l
i
.
e
r
l
y
.
,
;
i
L
i
n
e
o
f
·
s
a
i
d
l
o
t
N
o
r
t
h
T
3
°
4
8
'
0
5
1
1
W
e
s
t
'
9
,
1
.
7
2
.
f
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
W
f
,
;
l
s
t
e
r
l
y
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
'
s
a
l
o
t
j
-
'
i
h
e
n
:
c
e
N
o
;
c
·
t
n
e
r
l
y
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
c
u
.
r
v
e
d
W
e
s
t
e
r
l
y
.
l
i
n
e
:
o
f
s
o
.
:
l
,
.
d
l
o
t
.
,
a
n
a
r
c
d
:
L
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
1
0
.
l
l
t
f
e
e
t
o
t
h
e
\
n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
~
O
J
.
.
n
e
r
e
f
o
a
i
d
l
o
t
;
t
h
e
n
c
e
a
t
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
J
,
y
l
1
n
e
o
1
'
s
I
\
1
d
l
o
t
S
o
u
t
h
7
3
°
J
.
f
8
'
.
E
a
s
t
J
1
9
6
.
2
8
·
f
e
e
t
·
t
o
t
h
e
p
o
i
n
t
o
f
b
e
g
i
m
l
J
.
i
n
g
,
.
.
"
;
:
'
;
i
?
,
'
:
/
,
~
:
;
·
:
:
,
,
~
,
'
~
-
;
~
\
~
~
!
;
;
{
,
~
:
i
"
>
'
t
.
"
'
,
,
,
'
,
'
'
,
.
.
:
·
:
'
,
C
~
<
,
.
,
·
~
~
.
'
:
,
~
,
'
"
:
.
r
>
.
;
.
~
:
,
:
'
.
'
.
.
/
T
b
a
t
t
b
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
p
;
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
.
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
h
e
r
e
i
n
a
f
t
e
r
:
~
n
o
w
n
a
s
P
a
r
c
e
l
B
.
i
s
o
w
n
e
d
'
}
~
y
'
H
i
c
h
a
r
d
H
•
.
H
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
:
a
n
d
.
!
v
e
t
t
a
A
.
l
'
l
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
1
h
u
s
b
a
.
n
d
a
n
d
w
i
f
e
a
s
j
o
i
n
t
t
e
n
a
n
t
s
:
T
l
;
J
.
a
t
p
o
r
t
i
o
r
)
.
o
f
L
o
t
1
8
o
f
'
I
'
r
a
c
t
2
5
0
5
1
,
.
:
i
.
n
t
.
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
Y
"
o
f
l
.
(
l
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
:
,
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
,
a
s
-
p
e
:
r
,
r
n
a
p
r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
i
n
n
o
o
k
6
J
+
9
?
:
p
a
g
e
s
8
6
.
t
o
8
9
i
.
n
c
l
u
s
i
y
e
o
f
l
l
l
a
p
s
,
1
n
t
h
e
o
:
f
:
f
1
o
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
r
e
c
<
;
>
r
d
e
r
:
o
f
s
a
i
d
.
c
o
u
n
t
y
,
'
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
'
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
v
T
s
:
.
.
'
.
,
,
'
,
,
<
,
"
;
.
,
'
.
;
'
.
>
l
3
e
g
;
1
.
m
l
i
n
g
a
t
a
p
o
i
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
J
,
V
l
;
1
.
n
e
o
f
:
s
a
i
d
,
l
o
t
,
1
8
,
d
i
s
t
a
n
t
a
l
o
n
g
s
a
i
d
n
O
:
t
"
t
h
e
r
l
,
y
1
i
f
i
~
}
J
o
r
t
h
7
3
°
'
4
8
'
.
0
5
"
H
e
s
t
4
2
5
.
4
4
f
e
e
t
.
f
r
o
m
'
·
:
t
h
e
n
o
;
t
r
t
h
e
a
s
'
f
:
;
,
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
s
a
i
d
l
o
t
;
t
l
~
e
n
c
e
S
o
u
t
h
1
6
;
.
'
l
J
.
'
5
5
"
W
e
s
t
1
0
.
0
0
f
e
e
t
;
t
h
e
n
c
e
.
S
q
u
t
h
5
0
0
.
2
0
"
i
6
'
.
'
"
E
a
s
t
5
0
.
1
T
f
e
e
t
;
t
h
e
n
c
e
S
o
u
t
h
1
3
°
1
5
'
l
t
f
H
~
§
.
'
I
;
;
5
0
.
0
0
:
C
e
e
t
;
t
h
e
n
c
e
8
0
1
1
t
h
'
7
9
°
5
3
1
3
6
"
W
e
~
t
,
'
1
5
T
.
:
7
4
'
:
f
e
e
t
t
l
:
>
<
>
a
p
o
:
t
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
v
r
e
s
t
e
r
1
,
.
y
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
o
f
.
£
a
t
d
L
o
t
1
8
,
d
i
s
t
a
n
t
a
l
o
n
g
s
a
i
d
w
e
s
t
e
r
~
"
o
u
n
a
.
a
.
r
y
,
N
o
r
t
h
1
3
1
5
I
1
4
"
E
a
s
.
t
l
O
O
.
7
1
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
.
m
o
s
t
.
s
Q
t
l
i
;
h
e
r
l
y
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
s
a
i
d
l
o
t
;
.
t
h
e
n
c
e
a
l
o
n
g
s
a
i
d
.
w
e
s
t
e
r
J
,
y
h
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
s
o
u
t
h
;
1
.
3
°
1
5
'
1
4
"
W
e
s
t
,
1
0
0
.
7
1
f
'
e
e
t
'
j
;
C
J
S
f
L
i
c
l
r
n
p
s
t
f
:
l
~
l
U
t
p
.
e
r
~
Q
p
r
l
1
e
r
;
i
,
;
h
e
n
c
e
a
;
t
i
:
:
m
g
t
h
e
,
;
s
o
t
t
t
h
e
r
:
l
y
,
e
~
B
'
~
e
r
:
t
;
y
,
a
n
d
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
J
,
y
J
i
r
t
~
r
t
.
r
l
l
~
~
l
~
;
'
!
i
J
!
i
,
i
,
i
l
m
·
J
;
b
H
h
o
·
·
I
1
G
I
;
:
l
I
I
>
l
l
~
i
~
q
'
l
;
~
7
~
)
6
h
'
,
:
f
'
e
~
'
I
;
,
T
,
r
8
f
"
1
i
U
l
'
i
"
1
,
~
t
F
~
"
H
~
i
f
t
·
.
1
1
:
-
1
l
'
r
;
;
t
;
!
.
<
.
j
,
;
;
J
/
'
,
i
i
·
t
.
'
.
'
r
.
r
·
l
t
f
l
'
I
J
;
J
'
\
I
~
i
/
H
~
1
,
1
3
'
}
,
J
i
l
l
f
i
!
i
0
!
1
b
t
l
;
~
j
,
~
l
l
/
i
L
h
b
d
:
~
,
k
l
~
f
f
I
J
J
h
l
i
1
K
l
c
;
"
'
.
;
:
:
~
,
-
-
-
"
r
'
:
,
"
:
;
>
"
-
:
"
'
"
"
'
,
,
'
'
.
'
,
>
"
'
~
"
~
<
'
(
'
"
'
:
;
,
.
,
;
.
,
.
.
,
_
:
~
·
·
.
,
J
l
;
·
·
.
,
~
,
:
,
?
:
~
,
:
·
:
:
,
.
~
)
,
'
:
i
\
~
\
~
.
'
\
_
'
:
;
~
'
:
\
;
h
:
~
,
"
.
~
.
:
,
.
"
>
'
:
;
"
'
:
"
:
'
.
.
~
:
.
.
,
,
:
'
;
,
.
I
'
t
,
~
o
.
:
~
r
,
e
e
d
.
,
t
.
h
a
t
.
.
t
!
l
~
.
9
w
n
c
f
_
;
Q
f
'
.
~
¥
~
e
+
·
'
.
B
;
_
y
i
l
l
;
,
;
r
~
p
.
~
.
:
J
.
;
'
~
:
~
d
"
J
:
;
~
~
u
r
:
r
a
c
e
,
'
i
!
h
?
l
.
a
s
~
~
~
~
~
~
a
s
,
e
m
r
n
t
n
o
t
:
.
.
i
j
l
a
.
t
e
:
r
;
:
t
~
a
n
\
3
9
"
.
c
l
a
.
.
y
s
:
a
f
t
e
!
"
t
n
~
\
?
e
O
l
l
l
l
'
l
e
t
i
o
~
,
o
f
.
a
o
n
:
~
~
P
,
l
i
g
~
+
9
n
;
?
~
:
:
d
m
r
1
f
~
n
g
.
u
;
p
o
n
·
:
g
~
~
e
1
.
B
.
.
F
r
o
m
t
h
a
t
.
t
.
i
I
u
e
o
n
.
t
h
e
,
c
o
s
t
;
o
f
m
a
i
1
J
.
t
a
i
i
l
a
n
c
e
o
f
"
t
h
e
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
~
·
w
i
!
1
·
;
:
:
b
e
s
h
a
r
e
d
e
q
u
a
:
)
.
J
,
Y
.
'
l
!
\
t
.
,
~
h
.
e
,
.
q
y
m
.
e
r
s
o
f
p
a
r
c
e
'
k
a
n
o
;
.
1
?
e
,
r
c
e
l
,
J
3
~
I
t
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
<
3
.
'
t
h
~
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
e
a
s
~
m
e
h
t
A
l
'
:
\
f
;
'
\
l
1
s
e
r
v
e
o
n
~
~
t
l
:
(
e
"
:
p
c
i
r
c
e
l
s
~
h
o
v
m
a
s
F
a
r
c
e
]
:
A
_
a
i
}
d
'
:
P
a
:
t
'
c
e
~
'
D
;
,
"
.
.
·
:
o
i
\
.
'
:
.
,
'
.
,
i
-
C
,
.
.
,
"
;
l
(
(
,
\
"
.
r
.
f
f
'
•
•
•
.
.
.
.
.
>
i
;
>
:
,
.
:
.
I
,
t
"
~
~
;
:
~
%
:
r
e
,
e
4
:
t
h
a
t
a
l
1
'
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
,
P
a
r
e
e
l
"
1
3
'
W
i
l
l
;
;
b
e
i
t
\
n
d
,
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
:
d
·
~
f
c
!
m
.
;
!
?
~
~
n
O
l
"
t
l
m
e
s
t
e
r
:
q
;
e
~
;
~
~
~
;
~
.
o
f
~
~
~
b
e
l
B
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
'
.
.
>
.
.
,
:
r
\
.
:
,
;
'
l
t
\
:
:
:
'
.
•
t
.
l
\
:
:
1
\
.
(
~
'
.
:
.
:
"
.
.
.
,
.
.
•
•
.
•
.
,
.
:
r
t
:
t
s
~
g
r
e
e
d
,
.
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
o
f
P
a
r
c
e
l
A
w
i
U
'
h
a
v
e
t
n
e
:
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
t
r
:
!
.
r
r
.
a
1
1
t
r
e
.
~
s
'
o
n
P
a
r
c
e
l
B
.
t
h
a
t
.
'
i
r
e
"
,
e
h
:
:
~
1
;
+
i
g
l
l
e
i
"
i
1
,
l
;
e
i
:
v
a
t
i
o
i
:
l
t
h
a
n
.
o
n
e
t
o
o
t
'
;
:
e
~
¥
W
:
·
t
~
~
~
:
.
t
'
~
o
O
;
.
l
e
Y
e
l
·
:
o
:
t
'
d
~
:
l
.
~
~
~
n
~
,
t
q
~
'
.
,
t
>
~
r
d
~
~
A
.
I
t
w
i
l
:
'
1
)
~
;
'
t
1
i
~
~
:
,
f
~
.
~
:
P
9
!
l
f
L
J
·
'
.
:
l
,
:
t
h
t
y
o
f
,
~
h
e
.
:
o
~
~
r
,
p
~
'
.
~
~
W
~
,
:
t
.
,
/
~
t
~
O
·
\
'
t
;
f
:
!
J
r
!
.
,
'
l
i
h
~
,
.
1
'
~
e
~
~
.
a
~
l
:
)
i
~
:
'
~
~
!
(
;
l
x
r
>
e
n
s
e
•
.
:
J
:
t
:
;
;
!
.
!
3
;
'
.
a
g
r
e
~
~
'
t
l
f
a
t
,
n
o
·
a
t
r
l
l
Q
t
u
r
Q
W
i
:
l
.
l
,
.
,
,
.
e
:
'
.
b
U
i
l
t
:
'
,
(
)
p
!
'
~
$
l
~
:
l
:
\
'
t
:
J
3
'
;
t
h
~
~
·
<
i
a
·
:
h
i
g
h
e
r
.
i
n
.
;
~
*
e
v
a
t
i
o
r
i
t
h
a
n
0
1
1
0
'
f
O
Q
t
,
;
)
~
;
t
o
~
1
:
t
h
f
:
!
:
t
:
~
7
p
o
r
~
~
'
V
'
(
)
1
o
f
t
h
e
,
·
q
.
~
l
1
1
n
g
:
o
r
l
:
p
~
e
.
e
l
:
i
:
~
.
;
:
\
·
:
;
'
;
!
,
·
'
,
·
·
.
i
.
•
.
<
.
'
"
'
~
>
,
!
"
"
,
(
~
,
~
,
_
:
"
<
:
,
"
i
:
'
-
'
:
'
,
>
"
i
"
~
:
,
'
,
"
'
"
'
,
'
'
>
:
'
"
<
)
'
.
~
:
'
>
"
t
-
~
,
:
"
'
j
"
·
:
'
;
:
.
·
:
"
}
'
:
'
?
~
:
:
T
:
;
,
"
1
~
~
~
"
.
U
~
:
'
:
j
~
,
}
"
~
:
~
"
"
:
I
t
,
i
s
;
a
g
r
E
\
e
c
1
"
t
h
a
t
t
h
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
,
l
!
>
i
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
u
n
d
e
r
s
i
g
p
.
e
q
,
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
,
t
h
e
i
r
h
e
i
r
s
.
,
a
~
d
-
.
a
s
s
~
g
n
e
e
s
a
n
d
a
l
l
f
u
t
u
r
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
o
t
'
t
h
e
a
'
b
o
v
e
.
d
e
s
o
r
i
b
e
d
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
A
a
n
d
B
.
:
"
"
l
"
~
'
"
'
~
'
'
.
,
'
.
'
,
:
;
·
,
"
'
f
i
'
.
!
·
,
·
'
.
.
'
,
'
:
·
.
·
·
.
I
'
.
.
;
.
:
,
I
.
:
.
:
.
:
;
~
"
:
,
,
,
"
~
~
.
~
.
'
.
'
.
"
"
.
.
.
"
.
,
.
:
;
.
i
~
'
i
~
'
;
I
Z
.
;
~
U
Y
.
'
L
J
'
~
(
>
,
,
·
.
.
.
.
I
.
~
_
_
•
•
_
_
~
'
-
~
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
'
·
q
e
n
c
·
.
:
y
.
/
:
}
c
t
V
f
~
~
,
.
"
~
'
;
R
i
c
h
~
W
.
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
.
,
~
:
:
;
,
.
\
'
"
,
:
:
,
"
"
.
~
'
'
.
'
I
)
.
)
1
"
~
'
2
b
'
~
•
.
,
~
'
~
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
I
t
\
"
-
'
:
"
'
:
,
'
-
'
'
.
0
'
>
'
'
~
.
I
,
.
.
t
.
·
'
~
o
"
'
"
_
.
.
"
,
I
'
.
'
/
'
;
"
~
l
.
'
.
'
:
:
~
.
:
.
~
-
.
•
b
~
.
r
;
'
.
;
r
.
.
.
-
:
:
:
'
.
:
-
.
k
'
:
"
'
'
'
'
:
'
'
:
.
,
-
.
'
.
-
'
-
-
-
-
.
:
.
~
-
-
_
.
:
:
.
-
~
-
-
-
.
.
:
~
-
_
_
.
.
_
.
.
'
=
"
"
'
_
=
t
.
:
.
.
~
.
.
~
.
~
-
.
"
'
.
'
!
-
;
;
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
.
'
:
.
:
:
;
:
'
a
x
'
l
'
i
o
J
J
•
.
1
.
1
0
.
"
e
r
•
,
'
"
.
y
e
t
t
a
.
'
1
I
.
;
'
.
;
W
i
l
l
i
~
s
;
"
.
7
.
:
'
)
J
~
.
"
'
r
'
'
:
'
'
;
t
,
;
:
"
"
.
j
_
.
.
'
,
'
,
-
-
'
.
"
.
j
-
,
•
•
•
:
,
'
:
<
'
-
;
'
:
'
,
:
:
'
~
'
l
,
~
'
,
'
;
,
~
"
.
"
_
~
.
'
"
.
,
,
-
<
.
,
:
:
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
'
.
_
'
.
.
'
'
;
:
1
"
'
~
;
:
:
;
'
~
'
;
'
~
;
.
'
-
:
~
,
,
-
"
,
-
-
:
-
'
.
;
~
\
.
t
f
;
<
"
,
:
:
'
1
-
;
(
,
~
-
/
,
'
.
'
~
~
~
~
;
;
;
:
:
;
~
:
;
~
:
,
"
r
~
;
~
-
X
:
:
~
1
:
-
:
>
:
;
.
"
~
<
'
.
'
"
.
~
.
'
.
_
.
_
"
.
,
i
~
'
:
~
.
;
:
J
;
\
5
2
3
5
·
5
6
\
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
)
,
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
A
L
I
F
~
~
~
l
\
r
;
C
G
l
e
s
}
S
S
.
I
,
.
.
.
.
'
,
'
.
•
.
.
.
•
1
"
.
.
,
•
I
·
·
~
.
O
'
'
>
.
,
•
~
'
~
"
1
1
)
1
I
l
.
"
,
)
I
.
.
:
,
,
,
~
i
~
·
;
;
;
_
;
~
;
"
i
i
;
~
\
~
;
;
:
;
i
'
~
;
;
i
~
;
;
~
d
:
.
.
,
;
·
·
N
~
·
i
;
;
·
y
·
·
i
;
~
i
;
i
·
i
~
·
i
·
;
;
·
;
~
·
d
·
.
f
~
;
·
;
;
;
i
;
\
:
c
;
;
~
~
t
;
:
;
;
~
d
'
S
'
.
·
U
d
'
(
j
,
.
,
f
'
!
Y
.
.
u
(
)
~
~
.
t
e
r
a
n
a
D
a
r
a
,
"
l
a
t
e
,
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
y
a
p
p
e
a
r
e
,
~
,
~
'
.
.
]
I
'
a
.
.
I
)
o
l
:
;
.
t
e
:
r
:
;
.
~
a
J
:
l
9
.
.
.
.
:
3
.
i
.
g
)
1
~
:
:
r
.
,
~
;
,
.
.
;
:
~
.
.
,
~
:
,
:
J
:
,
:
,
:
.
.
.
~
:
.
~
~
.
.
:
~
~
_
.
.
"
:
_
"
"
"
•
•
"
.
Y
'
'
I
I
'
P
'
'
l
;
'
t
a
A
.
\
'
1
'
:
t
1
1
1
j
!
l
.
)
'
l
!
i
.
.
,
r
.
9
-
1
6
2
!
;
c
:
:
1
7
t
:
J
o
5
1
1
I
,
.
.
i
:
:
I
t
M
t
J
.
J
.
:
e
.
.
t
~
H
o
M
e
:
;
"
'
:
R
U
l
:
:
-
W
.
+
S
e
~
+
e
n
d
e
.
c
:
i
/
I
J
,
O
\
l
t
:
I
/
S
E
t
A
€
,
<
J
7
I
/
.
J
€
H
/
I
f
.
'
J
T
e
.
e
"
r
I
r
b
F
\
-
-
t
\
.
-
.
.
-
.
v
•
s
'
"
,
~
,
.
"
I
,
-
:
:
"
'
.
.
I
.
'
'
;
;
'
'
'
.
;
'
#
'
0
1
'
"
~
•
•
_
.
"
.
"
I
J
"
)
~
,
.
'
.
.
~
;
;
,
.
0
'
'
'
'
•
.
"
0
'
-
:
"
"
"
-
0
'
•
•
•
.
,
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
"
B
"
"
~
V
I
'
,
_
,
t
~
'
J
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
'
:
1
1
'
'
'
)
.
.
,
1
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
l
;
.
'
~
h
•
•
'
l
o
t
"
,
·
1
"
'
(
.
,
-
.
.
.
1
1
{
I
I
~
.
I
.
1
"
I
.
-
,
"
i
d
'
'
,
I
l
I
.
M
<
r
,
.
:
"
;
~
~
'
.
.
.
.
,
.
'
V
,
"
.
.
n
l
~
.
,
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
,
,
.
•
/
'
:
-
"
,
I
I
•
'
,
'
1
I
•
'
~
.
I
•
I
"
I
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
1
!
,
,
'
~
(
,
,
·
r
1
.
/
.
j
'
!
I
9
-
1
6
3
.
,
~
o
U
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
I
\
)
'
'
o
J
l
J
'
)
/
f
,
'
l
J
'
)
'
"
-
I
I
o
f
)
/
o
f
)
c
o
'
"
~
~
'
.
.
.
'
.
.
0
;
V
I
S
l
:
:
~
I
t
l
0
:
:
:
S
a
b
a
r
e
s
e
8
3
2
-
2
/
3
4
2
5
2
4
B
a
u
m
a
n
•
8
3
3
-
8
3
3
9
2
R
.
3
,
,
'
·
-
-
-
-
:
:
P
a
l
m
e
r
i
'
~
8
3
2
-
3
9
0
5
;
:
6
1
8
,
~
1
.
-
-
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
:
:
V
a
n
c
e
,
.
.
.
•
;
,
J
t
'
.
f
.
8
3
2
-
4
8
9
5
,
'
1
:
.
1
.
1
"
.
.
.
~
"
t
,
-
-
-
'
h
'
,
'
~
;
:
-
'
,
.
.
.
.
.
~
,
.
:
K
a
.
.
•
.
,
I
.
8
3
1
-
6
9
2
b
2
A
3
6
-
:
I
-
-
-
/
~
"
"
!
.
_
·
.
.
-
.
_
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
_
4
_
.
_
_
.
.
"
'
!
<
n
I
g
h
t
'
5
4
7
-
1
3
6
7
w
1
0
-
_
.
-
-
-
-
_
.
.
_
-
-
U
a
r
r
y
•
•
1
1
I
I
i
i
5
4
7
-
9
3
1
6
:
'
8
M
~
S
c
h
n
e
1
d
e
r
'
~
8
3
\
-
3
3
2
\
'
2
7
6
.
1
N
l
.
O
_
.
.
.
.
.
H
a
f
e
m
a
n
"
8
3
1
-
'
2
0
0
'
2
7
5
8
e
:
"
,
,
'
-
9
-
1
6
4
P
h
o
t
o
b
y
T
o
m
U
n
d
e
r
h
i
l
l
L
o
w
e
r
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
C
a
n
y
o
n
i
n
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
d
r
a
i
n
s
i
n
t
o
a
n
a
r
r
o
w
o
u
t
l
e
t
n
e
a
r
2
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
i
n
L
o
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
.
C
i
t
y
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s
a
r
e
w
o
r
r
i
e
d
t
h
a
t
s
l
o
p
e
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
'
s
w
a
l
l
w
i
l
l
c
a
u
s
e
a
b
a
c
k
u
p
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
,
p
e
r
h
a
p
s
r
e
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
b
y
a
n
c
i
e
n
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
s
L
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
.
B
y
J
o
s
h
C
o
h
e
n
N
e
w
s
S
t
a
f
f
W
r
i
t
e
r
R
P
V
-
-
A
f
t
e
r
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
$
3
.
5
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
t
o
f
l
x
u
p
p
e
r
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
C
a
n
y
o
n
i
n
R
a
n
c
h
o
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
,
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
'
s
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
n
e
a
r
-
i
n
g
a
d
e
c
i
s
i
v
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
h
o
w
b
e
s
t
t
o
f
i
x
.
a
s
l
o
p
e
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
'
s
l
o
w
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
s
c
e
n
e
i
s
a
f
a
m
i
l
i
a
r
o
n
e
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
a
l
l
e
A
v
e
n
t
u
r
a
.
T
h
e
c
i
t
y
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
w
o
r
k
t
o
s
h
o
r
e
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
l
i
d
e
s
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
'
s
u
p
p
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s
f
e
a
r
e
d
d
a
m
a
g
e
t
o
h
o
m
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
C
a
l
l
e
A
v
e
n
t
u
r
a
.
L
a
s
t
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
,
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
a
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
s
l
o
p
e
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
'
s
l
o
w
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
W
h
i
l
e
n
o
s
t
r
u
c
-
t
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
,
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
c
a
n
y
o
n
l
i
e
s
a
t
o
p
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
s
L
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
,
a
n
a
n
c
i
e
n
t
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
e
n
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
e
s
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
s
o
f
a
c
r
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
R
P
V
a
n
d
L
o
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
b
o
r
d
e
r
.
"
W
e
'
v
e
h
a
d
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
l
o
o
k
a
t
t
i
l
l
.
.
.
.
w
e
h
a
v
e
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
s
l
o
p
e
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
:
'
s
a
i
d
D
e
A
l
l
i
s
o
n
.
"
A
t
t
h
i
s
p
o
i
n
t
,
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
n
o
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
P
l
e
a
s
e
s
e
e
C
A
N
Y
O
N
P
;
"
9
-
1
6
5