PC RES 2021-009 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
A HEIGHT VARIATION, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, VARIANCE,
SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,285 FT' (GARAGE INCLUDED), THREE-
STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ANCILLARY SITE
IMPROVEMENTS WITH 1,697 YD3 OF ASSOCIATED GRADING ON
A VACANT LOT AT 28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST (CASE
NO. PLVA2018-0001).
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2018, Applicant Luis De Morales (on behalf of property
owner David De Langis) submitted the requested development applications for the
proposed project at 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2018, staff completed an initial review of the application
and revised plans submitted on June 13, 2018, at which time the application was deemed
incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2019, the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) reviewed
the proposed project in relation to the requested Encroachment Permit as traffic safety
was a concern for the two proposed driveway approaches near the apex of a tight hairpin
curve in the road. Public Works Department staff recommended a number of modifications
to the geometric elements proposed as part of the Encroachment Permit and, based on
the revisions and conditions that were to be imposed, the TSC recommended to support
the proposed encroachment along Palos Verdes Drive East; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2020, staff deemed the application complete for processing,
setting the action deadline to June 1, 2020. On the same day, a public notice was
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and mailed to all property owners within a
500-foot radius from the project site, providing a 30-day time period to submit comments;
and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2020, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing, at which time the application was continued to June 23, 2020, to provide an
opportunity for the Applicant to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission
related to Neighborhood Compatibility, grading, traffic safety, and the number of variances
requested; and
WHEREAS, between June 10, 2020, and July 1, 2020, the proposed project was
presented to the TSC on two occasions to further discuss traffic safety concerns.
Specifically, the TSC reviewed the two-way driveway access points and left-turn
P.C. Resolution No. 2021-09
Page 1 of 5
movements into the driveway as there were sight distance concerns regarding ingress and
egress to and from the project site; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2020, the Planning Commission received and filed a status
report on the proposed project and continued the public hearing to a date uncertain as the
application's 90-day extension to the action deadline (August 30, 2020) would not be met
with the subsequent TSC meeting scheduled on August 31, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2020, the TSC deferred the item to September 28, 2020,
to allow additional time for Public Works Department staff and the Applicant to review and
analyze the results of the joint sight distance surveys conducted on July 28, 2020, and
August 4, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2020, the TSC determined that the ingress/egress
for the proposed project will meet traffic safety requirements with modifications to the
plans and recommended its findings to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing, at which time the application was continued to May 11, 2021, to provide an
opportunity for the Applicant to address additional concerns raised by the Planning
Commission related to traffic safety, variance for the overall height, and potential liabilities
to the City; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2021, the TSC moved to support a proposed safety
shoulder with a mountable curb at the westbound curvature of Palos Verdes Drive East
and have the City's Traffic Consultant recommend appropriate traffic calming signage that
may be considered to provide an additional safeguard for vehicles traveling westbound;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources 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, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Section
15303 (New Construction) of the CEQA Guidelines. More specifically, the project involves
the construction of a single-family residence in the RS-2 zoning district, which is a
residential zone; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 11, 2021, at
which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND,
DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
P.0 Resolution No. 2021-09
Page 2 of 5
Section 1: The proposed project involves the construction of a new 5,285 ft2
(garage included), three-story, single-family residence and ancillary site improvements
with 1,697 yd3 of associated grading on a vacant lot at 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East.
Section 2: The Planning Commission is required to make findings for the Height
Variation Permit per §17.02.040(C)(1)(e) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
(RPVMC) regarding the construction of a new 5,285 ft2 (garage included) three-story
residence with an overall height of 44.5 feet. The Planning Commission finds that the
Height Variation Permit is not warranted as the proposed structure does not comply with
all Code requirements for the requested Major Grading Permit, Variance, and Site Plan
Review as noted in Section 3, 4, and 5 below. The overall height of the proposed structure
at 44.5 feet is significantly higher than the statutory limits of the code and what is found in
the immediate neighborhood which are closer to the maximum allowable height of 20 feet
for pad lots and 30 feet for down-sloping lots.
Section 3: The Planning Commission is required to make findings for the Major
Grading Permit per RPVMC §17.76.040(E) to conduct 1,697 yd3 of associated grading,
consisting of 75 yd3 of cut and 1,622 yd3 of fill with 1,547 yd3 of import, over an extreme
slope (i.e., slope steepness 35% or greater) with a maximum depth of cut and fill of 6 feet
and 17.5 feet, respectively. The Planning Commission finds that the Major Grading Permit
is not warranted as the proposed grading is excessive on an extreme slope that averages
43%. In addition, the proposed project is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood
as noted inSection 2 above, and does not conform to the grading standards set forth in
§17.76.040(E)(10) in terms of the maximum depth of grading and retaining walls required.
Section 4: The Planning Commission is required to make findings for the Variance
per RPVMC §17.64.050 related to deviations in the wall heights up to 19.25 feet within the
front yard setback area and up to 24 feet outside of the front yard setback area, as well as
exceeding the 30 feet height limit by nearly 150%. The Planning Commission does not find
that the Variance request is warranted The Planning Commission finds that the proposed
deviations from the development standards are substantial and that there are other
feasible alternatives to the design of the residence that would comply with, or come
substantially closer to complying with the intent of the RPVMC.
Section 5: The Planning Commission finds that the Site Plan Review for the
proposed ancillary, site improvements, which include a pool/spa, trash enclosure planters,
stairways, freestanding walls, combination walls and retaining walls up to 14.1 feet in
height, and mechanical equipment are not warranted as the improvements do not comply
with all applicable code requirements as noted in Sections 3 and 4 above.
Section 6: The Planning Commission is required to make findings for the
Encroachment Permit per City Council Policy No. 31 regarding the construction of a
circular two-way driveway that extends up to 26 feet from the front property line, retaining
walls up to 14.1 feet in height, planters, and 24-inch light fixtures in the public right-of-way
with 946 yd3 of associated grading. The Planning Commission finds that the
P.C. Resolution No 2021-09
Page 3 of 5
Encroachment Permit is not warranted as there continue to be traffic safety concerns. The
Planning Commission could not affirmatively conclude that the encroachment would not be
detrimental to public health and safety.
Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts P.C. Resolution No. 2021-
09, denying, without prejudice, the Height Variation Permit, Major Grading Permit,
Variance, Site Plan Review, and Encroachment Permit to construct a new 5,285 ft2
(garage included), three-story, single-family residence and ancillary site improvements
with 1,697 yd3 of associated grading on a vacant lot.
Section 8: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing, the
grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal
letter must be filed within 15 calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 p.m. on
Thursday, June 24, 2021. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If
no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 p.m. on
Thursday, June 24, 2021.
Section 9: Any challenge to this Resolution and the findings set forth therein, must
be filed within the 90-day statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6
and §17.86.100(B) of the RPVMC.
P.C. Resolution No. 2021-09
Page 4 of 5
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of June 2021, by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHURA, JAMES, SAADATNEJADI,
VICE-CHAIRMAN PERESTAM, AND CHAIRMAN LEON
NOES: NONE
ABSTENTIONS: NONE
RECUSALS: COMMISSIONERS HAMIL AND SANTAROSA
ABSENT: NONE
Gordon Leon
Chair
/awit :
Ken Rukavina, PE
Director of Community Development; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2021-09
Page 5 of 5