CC SR 20210817 02 - 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East AppealPUBLIC HEARING
Date: August 17, 2021
Subject:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a Height
Variation Permit, Major Grading Permit, Variance, Site Plan Review, and Encroachment Permit for the
property located at 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East (Case No. PLVA2018-0001).
Recommendation:
(1)Adopt Resolution No. 2021-__; GRANTING THE APPEAL AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A
HEIGHT VARIATION, 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 AT 28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
(CASE NO. PLVA2018-0001).
1.Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2.Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Alegria
3.Request for Staff Report: Mayor Alegria
4.Staff Report & Recommendation: Jaehee Yoon, Senior Planner
5.Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6.Public Testimony:
Principal Parties 10 Minutes Each. The appellant or their representative speaks first and will generally be allowed ten minutes. If the
applicant is different from the appellant, the applicant or their representative will speak following the appellant and will also be
allowed ten minutes to make a presentation.
A.Appellants: David de Langis
Mayor Alegria invites the Appellant to speak. (10 mins.)
B.Applicants: Luis de Moraes
Mayor Alegria invites the Applicant to speak. (10 mins.)
C.Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of spea kers who
intend to speak.
7.Rebuttal: Mayor Alegria invites brief rebuttals by Appellant and Applicant. (3 mins)
Normally, the applicants and appellants will be limited to a three (3) minute rebuttal, if requested after all other interested persons have
spoken.
8. Council Questions of Appellant (factual and without bias):
9. Council Questions of Applicant (factual and without bias):
10. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Alegria
11. Council Deliberation:
The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer
questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
12. Council Action:
The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/17/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission denial
of a Height Variation Permit, Major Grading Permit, Variance, Site Plan Review, and
Encroachment Permit for the property located at 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East (Case
No. PLVA2018-0001).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-__; GRANTING THE APPEAL AND CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION, 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 AT 28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE
EAST (CASE NO. PLVA2018-0001).
FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellant paid the $2,275 appeal fee. If the City Council grants
the appeal, the entire $2,275 appeal fee will be refunded to Appellant. If an appeal results
in a modification to the project, other than changes specifically requested in the appeal,
half of the appeal fee ($1,137.50) shall be refunded to Appellant. If the City Council denies
the appeal, the Appellant will not be refunded any of the appeal fee.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Jaehee Yoon, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ken Rukavina, P.E., Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 2021-___ (page A-1)
B. P.C. Resolution No. 2021-09 (page B-1)
C. Appeal Letter (page C-1)
D. Project Plans (page D-1)
E. Public Comments (page E-1)
F. City Council Policy No. 42 (page F-1)
1
Links to previous staff reports and actions taken by the Planning Commission and the
Traffic Safety Committee are incorporated into the Background discussion below.
BACKGROUND:
The matter before you tonight is the consideration of an appeal of a Planning
Commission-denial of a Height Variation Permit, Major Grading Permit, Variance, Site
Plan Review, and Encroachment Permit for the property located at 28160 Palos Verdes
Drive East. The subject project is for the construction of a new 3,975 ft² three-story
residence and ancillary improvements on a vacant 27,837 ft2 down-sloping lot, located at
the outside apex of a tight hairpin curve along Palos Verdes Drive East. The project
application and site conditions are described in detail in the “Discussion” section below.
A timely appeal (Attachment C) of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by the
Property Owner (Appellant) requesting that the City Council consider overturning the
Planning Commission denial of the requested project applications thereby approving the
proposed project.
De Novo Review
Although the application for the subject project was vetted, reviewed and denied by the
Planning Commission, tonight’s hearing on this matter is a “de novo” hearing, meaning
that the City Council shall conduct the hearing as if the action had not been previously
heard and as if no decision had been rendered, except that all testimony, evidence and
other material from the record of the previous consideration shall be included in the record
of the review. Additionally, Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) §
17.80.070(F) notes that "the City Council appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of
the materials presented to the Planning Commission. Any matter or evidence relating to
the action on the application, regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed
by the City Council at the appeal hearing." As such, the City Council is not limited to only
considering the bases of the appeal and may expand the consideration of the appeal
hearing to include the concerns relayed by the public and Planning Commission, or any
additional concerns raised by the City Council as a result of the public hearing.
In conducting an appeal hearing, the City Council may:
1. Approve the application upon finding that all applicable findings have been
correctly made and all provisions of Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning)
of this code are complied with; or
2. Approve the application but impose additional or different conditions or guarantees
as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of Title 16 and Title 17 of this Code;
or
3. Deny the application without prejudice, upon a finding that all applicable findings
have not been correctly made or all provisions of Title 16 and Title 17 of this Code
have not been complied with but that, in either case, the application has merit and
2
may possibly be modified to conform with the provisions of Title 16 and Title 17 of
this Code; or
4. Disapprove the application upon finding that all applicable findings cannot be made
or all provisions of Title 16 and Title 17 of this Code have not been complied with;
or
5. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with instructions.
As noted above, the City Council shall make certain findings to either approve the project
(uphold the appeal) or deny the project (deny the appeal). A discussion on Staff’s findings
supporting the project, the Traffic Safety Committee’s support of the project based on
traffic analysis and proposed mitigation measures, and the Planning Commission’s
finding for denial are presented in the “Discussion” section below.
A timeline of the application process for this project immediately follows.
On May 16, 2018, the Applicant submitted a Height Variation Permit, Major Grading
Permit, Variance, Site Plan Review, and Encroachment Permit applications for the
proposed project at 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East. Due to the complexity of the project
site, the proposed project was presented to the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) and
Planning Commission (PC) on several occasions, as summarized below:
1. TSC Meeting (November 25, 2019)
The proposed project was presented to the TSC as the requested Encroachment Permit
involved a two-way driveway approach near the apex of a tight hairpin curve along Palos
Verdes Drive East that raised traffic safety concerns. The TSC moved to support the
project with revisions in the public right-of-way and imposed a number of conditions to be
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, if the project were to be approved.
• November 25, 2019 TSC Staff Report (see Page 10)
• November 25, 2019 TSC Meeting Minutes (see Page 2)
2. PC meeting (May 12, 2020)
A duly-noticed public hearing was held, 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.
• May 12, 2020 PC Staff Report
• May 12, 2020 PC Minutes (see Page 2)
3. TSC Meetings (June 10, July 1, September 28, 2020)
Sight distance visibility analyses were conducted and discussed at three TSC meetings
for the proposed two-way driveway access points as there were concerns regarding
3
ingress to and egress from the project site. After reviewing information presented, the
TSC moved to support the proposed modifications to the plans regarding ingress/egress
issues as it met traffic safety requirements.
• June 10, 2020 TSC Staff Report (see Page 12)
• July 1, 2020 TSC Staff Report (see Page 11)
• September 28, 2020 TSC Staff Report (see Page 39)
• June 10, July 1, and September 28, 2020 TSC Meeting Minutes (see Pages 2,
13 and 24)
4. PC meeting (March 23, 2021)
A duly-noticed public hearing was held, 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, the requested Variance for
the overall height, and potential liabilities to the City if a collision were to occur as a direct
or indirect result of approving the proposed project.
• March 23, 2021 PC Staff Report
• March 23, 2021 PC Meeting Minutes (see Page 2)
5. TSC Meeting (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 directed the City’s traffic consultant
to recommend appropriate traffic calming signage that may be considered to provide an
additional safeguard for vehicles traveling westbound.
• April 26, 2021 TSC Staff Report (see Page 26)
• April 26, 2021 TSC Meeting Minutes (see Page 2)
6. PC meeting (May 11, 2021)
A duly-noticed public hearing was held to consider the proposed project revisions. Despite
the TSC’s recommendations, revisions by the Applicant, and additional information
provided by Staff to support the project, the Planning Commission continued to express
concerns of potential collisions along the tight hairpin curve. Furthermore, the Planning
Commission could not affirmatively make the required findings for the requested
development applications as it relates to the proposed encroachment in the public right-
of-way, grading, and the overall structure height. As such, the application was denied on
a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Hamill and Santarosa recusing, and directed Staff to
bring back a resolution to that effect for adoption at the June 8, 2021, meeting.
• May 11, 2021 PC Staff Report
• May 11, 2021 PC Meeting Minutes (see Page 2)
4
7. PC meeting (June 8, 2021)
The Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2021-09 (Attachment B),
denying, without prejudice, the requested development applications and a Notice of
Decision was provided to the Applicant, Property Owner, and interested parties who
commented on the project.
8. June 24, 2021
A timely appeal (Attachment C) of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by the
Property Owner (Appellant) requesting that the City Council consider overturning the
Planning Commission denial of the requested project applications.
9. July 8, 2021
A public notice of this appeal was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and
mailed to interested parties and all property owners within a 500-foot radius from the
project site. As of the completion of this report, Staff received four comments in response
to the public notice.
DISCUSSION:
The following sections provide an overview of the 1 ) project including site and project
descriptions; 2) a summarized discussion of application codes; and 3) bases of appeal.
1) Site and Project Description
The project site is a vacant 27,837 ft2 down-sloping lot, located at the southern tip of a
tight hairpin curve along Palos
Verdes Drive East. With an
average slope steepness of 43%,
the overall elevation difference
between the street of access
(Palos Verdes Drive East) and the
rear property line is approximately
75 feet in height. The project site’s
General Plan land use and Zoning
designations are Residential 1-2
D.U./AC and Single-Family
Residential (RS-2), respectively.
In addition, nearly half of the
southern portion of the project
site’s General Plan land use and
Zoning designations are Open
Space Hillside and Open Space
Hazard (OH), respectively.
5
At this time, no changes have been proposed by the Appellant beyond what was
presented to and denied at the May 11 Planning Commission meeting, which proposes
the following improvements on a vacant lot:
• Construct a new 3,975 ft² three-story residence with an attached 1,310 ft² two -story
garage, resulting in a total structure size of 5,285 ft².
• Construct 911 ft² of balcony areas along the east and rear (south) façade of the
proposed residence.
• Increase the wall heights within the front yard setback up to 6 feet in height and up to
24 feet in height outside of the front yard setback through a Variance .
• Construct improvements in the public right-of-way to provide access to the proposed
residence including, two new driveways, curb cuts, retaining walls, and planters with
an Encroachment Permit.
• Construct ancillary site improvements including a pool, spa, trash enclosure, planters,
stairways, freestanding/combination/retaining walls to support the proposed
improvements.
• Conduct 751 yd³ of total grading for the private property consisting of 75 yd³ of cut and
676 yd³ of fill with a maximum cut and fill of 6 feet and 9 feet, respectively.
• Conduct 946 yd³ of total grading in the public right -of-way consisting of 946 yd³ of fill
with a maximum fill of 17.5 feet to accommodate the proposed improvements .
• Increase the allowable building height for a downslope property from the 16’/30’
building height envelope through a Variance. The height of the proposed residence
on the down-sloping lot will be 35.75 feet, as measured from the average elevation of
the setback line abutting the street access (elev. 634.75 feet) to the highest proposed
roof ridgeline (elev. 670.50 feet); and an overall height of 44.5 feet, as measured from
the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 626.00 feet) to the highest
proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 670.50 feet)
Below is a table that summarizes critical components of the project revisions presented
at the May 11, 2021 Planning Commission meeting in comparison to the original plans
reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2020:
Table No. 1: Project Revision Comparison
CRITERIA ORIGINAL PLAN REVISED PLAN
Structure Size
5,923 ft2 5,285 ft2
Front Setback (Hillside) 5 feet 10 feet
Lot Coverage 32.25% 30.53%
6
CRITERIA ORIGINAL PLAN REVISED PLAN
Height
Average elevation of the
setback line abutting the
street access to the highest
roof ridgeline*
Lowest finished grade
adjacent to the building
foundation/slab to the
highest ridge of the building
32 feet
(measured from elev. 638.50 feet)
44.5 feet
35.75 feet
(measured from elev. 634.75
feet)
44.5 feet
Grading
Total Quantity
Max. Depth
1,517 yd3
9-foot cut / 14.5-foot fill
1,697 yd3
6-foot cut / 17.5-foot fill
Variance Request
1. Front yard setback
reduction
2. Side yard setback
encroachment
3. Front yard landscaping
reduction
4. Wall height
5. Building height
1. Wall height
2. Building height
* The highest roof ridgeline elevation for the original and revised plans remain the same at 670.50 feet
2) Code Consideration and Analysis
Pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.040(C), §17.76.040(B)(2), §17.64.010, §17.70.010, and City
Council Policy No. 31, the proposed project requires a Height Variation Permit, Major
Grading Permit, Variance, Site Plan Review, and Encroachment Permit.
Based upon detailed analyses of zoning code considerations and affirmative findings,
Staff recommended the Planning Commission conditionally approve the proposed
applications. Staff’s findings are summarized below; a complete discussion of code
consideration and analyses of the findings can be found in the May 2, 2020 Planning
Commission staff report, which are supplemented further in subsequent Planning
Commission staff reports listed in the “Background” section above.
7
Table No. 2: Code Consideration and Analysis
Code Consideration
Staff’s Analysis
Height Variation Permit
1. Complies with Early Neighborhood
Consultation process
Yes. 7 signatures (70%) from properties
within 100 ft and 20 signatures (40%)
within 500 ft of the project site obtained.
2. No significant view impairment from
public property
Yes. Location and vicinity of the project
site is not a public viewing area or
viewing site; not within the City’s Coastal
Zone or any other City specific plan.
3. Not located on a ridge or promontory Yes. Not located on a prominent mass of
land that overlooks or projects onto a
lowland or body of water on two sides.
4. No significant view impairment from
the viewing area of another parcel
Yes. Due to the orientation and location
of the neighboring parcels and
topography of the area, views will not be
impacted.
5. If view impairment exists, project is
designed to reasonably minimize
impairment
Not applicable as there will be no view
impairment.
6. No significant cumulative view
impairment
Yes. The unique development of
residences on sloping lots at varying
elevations and the existing topography in
the area will not cause view impacts.
7. Complies with all other code
requirements
Yes, provided that all applicable findings
for the Variance request are made.
8. Compatible with the immediate
neighborhood character
Yes. The scale, architectural style, and
setbacks are compatible with the
immediate neighborhood.
9. No unreasonable infringement of
privacy of abutting residences
Yes. No privacy impacts due to steep
topography, existing vegetation, and the
layout of the adjacent homes.
Major Grading Permit
1. Necessary for the permitted primary
use of the lot
Yes. Grading required to notch residence
into hillside lot and provide adequate
access for vehicles and fire department.
2. No significant adverse effects to visual
relationships nor the views from
neighboring properties
Yes, as noted above in the Height
Variation Permit finding No. 4.
3. Minimizes disturbance to natural
contours and finished contours are
natural
Yes. Limited to proposed residence and
ancillary site improvements related to
provide adequate access.
8
Code Consideration
Staff’s Analysis
4. Preserves natural topographic
features and appearances to blend
into the natural topography
Yes. Finished contours surrounding the
proposed residence will appear natural
and blend seamlessly with the existing
contours.
5. New single-family residence is
compatible with the immediate
neighborhood character
Yes, as noted above in the Height
Variation Permit finding No. 8.
6. New residential tract protects slopes
from soil erosion and slippage, and
minimize visual effects of grading and
construction on hillside areas
Not applicable as the project does not
involve a new residential tract
development.
7. Utilizes street designs and
improvements to minimize grading and
harmonize with the natural contours
Yes. Grading involves modifications to
the public right-of-way that best reflect the
needs of the Applicant and the City.
8. Not cause excessive and unnecessary
disturbance of the natural landscape
or wildlife habitat
Yes. The proposed grading area does not
contain natural landscape or wildlife
habitat.
9. Conforms to grading criteria regarding
slope steepness, depth, retaining
walls, and driveways
No. Standards for grading on extreme
slope, maximum depth of cut/fill, and
retaining wall height cannot be met.
10. Additional findings when deviating
from grading criteria No. 9
Yes. Project is consistent with Grading
Permit purpose; does not constitute grant
of special privilege inconsistent with other
properties in vicinity; will not be
detrimental to public safety nor other
properties; and Notice of Decision shall
be given to adjacent properties.
Variance
1. Exceptional/extraordinary
circumstances or conditions exist
applicable to the property, or to the
intended use
Property is located at the end of a tight
hairpin curve with steep slopes averaging
43% in steepness.
2. Necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property
right
Topographic constraints require a
variance to allow desired development of
the property.
3. Not materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property and
improvements in the area
Geology and Biology Report reviewed; all
construction to adhere to the California
Building Code; and conditions related to
traffic safety will be imposed.
4. Not contrary to the objectives of the
general plan or the policies and
requirements of the coastal specific
plan
Consistent with the General Plan Land
Use Policy No. 3 (p. L-7); not subject to
coastal specific plan.
9
Code Consideration
Staff’s Analysis
Site Plan Review
Complies with provisions of the Municipal
Code
Yes, provided that all applicable findings
for the Variance request are made.
Encroachment Permit
1. Not detrimental to the public
health/safety and does not pose a
hazard to vehicular traffic, pedestrians,
or equestrians
Yes. Reviewed and supported as revised
by the Public Works Department and
Traffic Safety Committee.
2. Cannot be reconfigured or relocated
due to practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardship, including
economic hardship
Yes. It will cause more concerns related
to bulk and mass, overall height, and
grading.
3. Consistent with the general intent of the
Development Code
Yes. The driveway entrance/exit will be
better defined and enhance vehicular
circulation which in turn promotes public
health, safety, and general welfare.
4. Illuminating elements have minimal
impacts to neighboring properties or
vehicular traffic
Yes. Light fixtures will be shielded to
minimize direct illumination impacts to
neighboring properties and vehicular
traffic.
5. No significant view from surrounding
property
Yes. Properties in the vicinity generally do
not observe a view in the direction of the
encroaching structures.
3) Traffic Safety Committee Considerations
The Applicant submitted a Traffic Engineering Analysis which included a sight distance
analysis based on the posted 25 miles per hour (MPH) advisory speed. The City’s traffic
engineering consultant responded that the 85th percentile speed should be used, which
is 38 MPH from the general Traffic Engineering speed surveys taken for this stretch of
road. Subsequently, new speed data was collect ed at the project location and the 85th
percentile speed was determined to be 30 MPH. Field sight distance analysis was
performed to determine actual available sight distances to the proposed driveways. The
City’s traffic engineer agreed that sight distance was adequate if the following mitigation
measures were applied:
• The west driveway approach and east driveway approach allow vehicles to exit the
property for both left and right turns;
• Entrance to the property will be restricted to the west driveway only; and,
• East driveway is to be gated and opened only to exit the property.
Based on the results of this analysis, the TSC and Staff recommended the Planning
Commission consider that the sight distance traffic concerns are mitigated with the above
conditions. Following Planning Commission denial of the application, Public Works had
10
an independent third-party Traffic Engineer review the process that was used and results
obtained specific to the sight distance and proposed mitigation measures (the memo
memorializing the third-party’s review will be submitted as late correspondence). The
third-party traffic engineer concurs with both the City and Applicant’s traffic engineers that
the recommendations meet the minimum stopping sight distance standards with the
application of the traffic mitigation measures.
Additionally, the Applicant proposed a safety shoulder with a mountable curb at the
westbound curvature of Palos Verdes Drive East to provide an additional safeguard for
vehicles traveling westbound which was supported by the TSC.
4) Planning Commission Findings for Denial
On June 8, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution 2021-09
(Attachment B) making the following findings to deny the project without prejudice:
• The Major Grading Permit is not warranted as the Planning Commission made
findings that the proposed grading is excessive on an extreme slope that averages
43%, in which the project may be revised (by reducing the size of the residence)
to minimize disturbance to the natural contours than what is proposed to
accommodate a new single-family residence and ancillary site improvements.
Additionally, the proposed project is not compatible with the immediate
neighborhood and does not conform to the grading standards set forth in
§17.76.040(E)(9) nor the findings set forth in §17.76.040(E)(10) in terms of the
maximum depth of grading and retaining walls required.
• The Variance request for the overall building height exceeding the 30-foot height
limit by nearly 150% is not warranted as the topographical constraints of the project
site are also found in other lots in the vicinity developed with a single-family
residence, and the Variance request is not necessary for the Applicant to build a
home in a similar fashion. As such, the Planning Commission is of the opinion that
there could be other feasible alternatives to the design of the residence that will
require a more moderate deviation to the allowable building envelope and closer
in character to the other residential lots nearby under similar conditions.
• 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.
• The Encroachment Permit is not warranted as there continues to be traffic safety
concerns associated with the project proposed at the end of a tight hairpin curve
where the sight distance visibility may not be sufficient for vehicles, pedestrians,
or equestrians.
11
These findings are detailed in PC. Resolution 2020-09 (Attachment B) denying the
project.
5) Bases of Appeal
The appeal seeks to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the requested project
applications. The Appellant’s bases of the appeal (shown in bold) and Staff’s responses
are provided below:
1) There was a lack of understanding and confusion by the Planning
Commission on the prevailing speed limits used for the traffic study.
Staff Response: There have been five TSC meetings conducted between November
2019 and April 2021 regarding the proposed project, and ultimately the TSC moved to
support the project with proposed revisions and certain conditions to be imposed as the
project, as designed, will meet applicable traffic safety requirements.
The referenced confusion by the Appellant is in regards to the 85th percentile used for the
stopping sight distance analysis in the vicinity of the proposed project site. The confusion
appears to have stemmed from the fact that links provided in the PC staff reports
referencing the TSC staff reports direct the reader to the first page of the TSC agenda
rather than the staff report specific to the subject project.
The April 2021 TSC agenda included an item for TSC’s consideration of the 2021
Engineering and Traffic Survey recommending speed limits on various arterial roadways,
including Palos Verdes Drive East. This study noted that the 85th percentile speed for
Palos Verdes Drive East was 35 MPH; however, this speed was taken at a point between
Bronco Drive and the northern City limits where geometric conditions are different than in
front of the project site where the 85th percentile speed used for the stopping sight
distance analysis was notably lower (30 MPH), as drivers slow to navigate the tight curve.
This 85th percentile speed difference found in another agenda item of the TSC report
created confusion and doubt on the correctness of data used for the site-specific stopping
sight distance analysis.
To help clarify, the November 2019 TSC staff report noted that the prevailing speed limit
of 38 MPH, which was data collected nearby at the intersection of Headland Drive and
Palos Verdes Drive East, should have been used by the Applicant to demonstrate
adequate stopping sight distance as the Applicant based their analysi s on the posted
speed limit of 25 MPH. However, as noted in the subsequent June 2020 TSC staff report,
the prevailing speed limit for the stopping sight distance analysis was revised to 30 MPH,
which was based on a site-specific speed radar survey collected in May 2020 on the curve
immediately adjacent to the project site. It is this site-specific 85th percentile, 30 MPH,
speed that has been used in the subsequent traffic analysis when considering traffic
conditions and safety related matters at this specific location on Palos Verdes Drive East.
The differences in the referenced 85th percentile speeds used and reported in various
documents at different locations on Palos Verdes Drive East appear to have created
some confusion.
12
2) The proposed grading quantity is based on the City’s best interest and
preference as approximately 1,000 yd3 of additional grading was
recommended by the Public Works Department instead of a concrete deck
to accommodate concerns with widening Palos Verdes Drive East in the
future.
Staff Response: The Appellant is correct in his statement regarding the Public Works
Department’s direction leading to the revised changes and ultimate project
encroachments into the public right-of-way, that resulted in additional grading. However,
the Planning Commission’s concern with grading was more closely related to excessive
grading on extreme slope (i.e., 35% or greater) where the average slope steepness of the
project site is 43%. While the RPVMC allows construction of a new residence on extreme
slope for lots created prior to City incorporation under certain conditions pursuant to
RPVMC §17.48.060(G) and §17.76.040(E)(9)(a), the Planning Commission could not
affirmatively make all the required findings as it was their opinion that the project can be
revised to construct a more modest-sized home that required less grading on extreme
slope. On the other hand, Staff made all applicable findings for the requested Major
Grading Permit as noted in Table No. 2 above and supports the project as proposed.
3) The building height is justifiable to meet Fire Department requirements,
provide runoff mitigation measures, accommodate widening of Palos Verdes
Drive East, and comply with parking requirements.
Staff Response: The overall height of the residence at 44.5 feet exceeds the 30 -foot by-
right height for sloping lots by nearly 150%. Per the Appellant, this is primarily due to the
entry level finished floor elevation being determined by the two-way driveway approach
that will extend from Palos Verdes Drive East, at a grade stipulated by the City’s Public
Works Department to better accommodate any future road work or widening. With the
entry level elevation fixed, the rest of the floor levels underneath will require stepping
down and notching into the sloping lot at great heights due to the steepness of the slope
averaging 43%.
Unless the depth of the residence is significantly reduced or additional grading is
proposed along the rear façade with multiple planters to raise the lowest finished grade
elevation covered by the foundation or slab of the proposed structure (which may not
meet the intent of the code), the overall height of the residence will not be able to be
reduced closer to the 30-foot height limit. Given the constraints of the project site’s
physical attributes, Staff is of the opinion that there is merit in the Appellant’s appeal
assertion. However, it should be noted that the parking/driveway requirements of the
RPVMC §17.02.030(E) do not specifically require a garage to be directly accessed from
the street per the Appellant’s letter. Rather, the applicable requirements related to direct
access garages are that there shall be a minimum 20-foot clearance from the front
property line, which is the street of access. In other words, a garage does not necessarily
have to be at street level as long as it provides the minimum required parking spaces and
dimensions, and the driveway entrance complies with Public Works Department design
standards when it is located in the public right-of-way.
13
4) The proposed project has been reduced by approximately 900 ft2 in size to
address the Planning Commission’s concern related to size and massing.
Inclusion of a subterranean garage, which increases the overall size, is
necessary as surface parking is limited given the unique site conditions.
Staff Response: To clarify, the size of the proposed project has been reduced by 658 ft2
after the application was first presented to the Planning Commission on May 12, 2020.
While the residence will be the second largest home in the immediate neighborhood, Staff
is in support of the proposed structure size (5,285 ft2) as it is comparable to that of two
other homes in the vicinity that are over 5,000 ft2 each. In addition, the 1,310 ft2 two-story
garage that may appear larger than other homes is reasonable as there are limitations on
providing adequate parking on site due to the narrow roadway where parking is prohibited
and the circular two-way driveway proposed in the public right-of-way at the tip of a tight
hairpin curve.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Public Correspondence
In response to the public notice issued on July 7, 2021 regarding the City Council appeal
hearing, Staff received four public comments (Attachment E). The first comment asked if
previous comments related to the project will be incorporated into this staff report, to which
Staff responded that it will be included as part of the attachments and/or links in the report.
The second comment stated that they will attend the pub lic hearing before the City
Council and asked why the written comments were due prior to the staff report posting on
the City website. Staff responded by noting that written comments can be addressed in
the staff report if they are received in advance of the posting date. The third comment
raised concerns previously expressed during the TSC and PC meetings related to the
several Variance requests, encroachment up to 26-27 feet into the public right-of-way,
Neighborhood Compatibility, canyon view impairment, extreme slope conditions, and
traffic safety, all of which have been addressed in the previous staff reports. The fourth
comment requested that the memo from Wildan (City’s traffic engineering consultant),
which stated that the ingress to and egress from the property is unsafe , be included in
this report; disagreed with allowing a 27-30 foot encroachment in the public right-of-way;
and requested that the Planning Commission’s denial of the project be withheld. It should
be noted that while the first review of the project by Wildan (memo dated November 13,
2019) did not recommend approval of the proposed encroachment and sight distance
analysis, during the November 25, 2019 TSC meeting, the City’s traffic consultant verbally
concurred that the project revisions agreed upon between the Public Works Department
and Applicant are acceptable.
CONCLUSION:
As noted in P.C Resolution 2021-09 (Attachment B), the Planning Commission ultimately
denied the proposed project due to continued concerns related to traffic safety, grading,
and the overall building height. Nonetheless, Staff is of the opinion that all necessary
14
findings for the proposed project have been made as noted in the March 23, 2021 and
May 11, 2021 PC staff reports as a series of revisions were made and adequate
conditions were imposed to bring the project closer to compliance with all applicable
requirements.
As such, pursuant to City Council Policy No. 42 (Attachment F), which requires Staff to
present its independent and professional recommendation to the City Council, in addition
to presenting the decision of the Planning Commission, Staff recommends that the City
Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, thereby
conditionally approving a Height Variation, 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 at 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East.
Chairman Perestan will attend the August 17 meeting to answer any questions regarding
the Planning Commission’s decision.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny
a Height Variation, Major Grading Permit, Variance, Site Plan Review, and
Encroachment Permit (Case No. PLVA2018-0001) without prejudice, and direct
Staff to bring back a resolution memorializing this decision on September 7, 2021.
2. Hear public testimony this evening, identify any issues of concern with the
proposed project, provide Staff and/or the Appellant with direction in modifying the
project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain.
15
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 1 of 18
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES GRANTING THE APPEAL AND
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A 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 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 Height Variation, Major Grading Permit, Variance, Site
Plan Review, and Encroachment Permit applications requesting approval to construct a
new three-story residence and ancillary site improvements with associated grading 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 re quested Encroachment Permit as traffic safety
was a concern for the two proposed driveway approaches near the apex of a tight 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
A-1
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 2 of 18
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
movements into the driveway as there were sight distance concerns rega rding 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 February 18, 2021, 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 and interested parties, providing a 30-day time period to submit comments;
and
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2021, 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 and interested parties, providing a 30-day time-period to submit comments;
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 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 the 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, on May 11, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at
which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence. Due to potential impacts and concerns related to traffic safety, grading, and
A-2
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 3 of 18
overall structure height, the Planning Commission denied the project without prejudice and
directed staff to bring back a resolution memorializing the denial.
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution
No. 2021-09 denying, without prejudice, the requested development applications; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2021, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s
decision was filed by the Property Owner (Appellant) requesting that the City Council
consider overturning the Planning Commission denial of the requested p roject
applications; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2021, a public notice for the City Council appeal healing was
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and mailed to all property owners within a
500-foot radius from the project site and interested parties, providing a 30-day time period
to submit comments; 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, on August 17, 2021, the City Council considered the merits of the
appeal, and heard public testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
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 City Council has considered the bases for the appeal offered by
the Appellant, and finds that there is merit in the appeal to conditionally approve the
requested applications as described in the following sections.
Section 3: The City Council finds that the Height Variation for the construction of a
new 5,285 ft2 (garage included) three-story residence with an overall height of 44.5 feet is
warranted based on the following findings:
A. The Applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process
guidelines and procedures by obtaining seven signatures (70%) from properties
within 100 feet and 20 signatures (40%) within 500 feet of the project site, where
A-3
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 4 of 18
there is no active Homeowners Association existing in the neighborhood from
which proof of notification is required.
B. The proposed residence does not significantly impair a view from public property
(parks, major thoroughfares, bikeways, walkways or equestrian trails), which
has been identified in the City’s General Plan, Conceptual Trails Plan, Trails
Network Plan, or Coastal Specific Plan. The project site is not located within the
City’s Coastal Zone or any other City specific plan. While the proposed
residence will be visible from the vehicular view corridor along Palos Verdes
Drive East and the C18 Upper Palos Verdes Drive East Trail Segment, the
location and vicinity of the project site is not a public viewing area or viewing
site, as defined by the General Plan. Hence, there will be no significant view
impairments from public property caused by the proposed project.
C. The proposed residence is not located on a ridge or promontory, nor located on
a prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowl and or body of
water on two sides.
D. The area of a proposed addition to an existing structure that is above 16 feet in
height, as defined in Section 17.02.040(B) of the Municipal Code, when
considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from
the viewing area of another parcel. Views from the residences located along
Palos Verdes Drive East are oriented in the southwesterly or southeasterly
direction towards either the harbor, ocean, or the pastoral environment of the
nearby canyon area, depending on which side of the hairpin curve they are
located. The properties to the east and west of the project site are at similar
elevations with views of the pastoral environment in their rear yards that will not
be significantly impaired as the proposed residence will be in the far periphery of
their view frames. In addition, the properties to the south will not be impacted as
they are located at approximately 30 feet higher in elevation than the project
site. Lastly, the properties to the north are located at least 20 feet higher in
elevation and at a minimum 160 feet away from the project site. Therefore, the
project will have no significant impacts to views.
E. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
Height Variation given the unique development of residences on sloping lots at
varying elevations and the existing topography in the area.
F. The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements including, but
not limited to, setbacks, lot coverage, and parking. The maximum allowable wall
height within and outside of the front yard setback and overall structure height
deviations are granted through a Variance as noted in Section 4.
G. The proposed residence is compatible with the character of the immediate
neighborhood in terms of the scale, architectural style, and setbacks. The
A-4
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 5 of 18
existing neighborhood is comprised of irregularly shaped lots that are improved
with custom designed homes that incorporate various design elements and
façade treatments from both modern and traditional architectural styles in terms
of the building design, materials, and co lors. The proposed residence
incorporates a number of similar architectural features commonly found within
the immediate neighborhood. Specifically, the exterior finishes to the residence
and ancillary site improvements include stucco façades with wood siding and
stone/tile veneer accents. In addition, the appearance of bulk and mass of the
proposed residence will be minimized by the varied ridgeline elevations,
recessed upper floor areas, and inclusion of balconies and a roof deck that
serve as visual breaks. The proposed project is surrounded by other two-story
residences and will appear single-story from the street as it will be notched into
the existing slope. Lastly, the proposed project will exceed the required
minimum setbacks between adjacent properties that allow sufficient air, light,
and privacy between structures.
H. The proposed addition to an existing structure that is above 16 feet in height
does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants
of abutting residences. Specifically, the proposed balconies, roof deck, and
windows throughout the facades that are placed above 16 feet in height
primarily face the steep down-sloping canyon located to the rear of the property
that is improved with mature foliage on both side yards. There will be no
unreasonable infringement of privacy due to obstructions caused by the steep
topography, existing vegetation, and the layout of the adjace nt homes, which
have little to no useable outdoor space that can be seen from the proposed
features exceeding 16 feet in height.
Section 4: The City Council finds that the Major Grading Permit 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, is warranted based on the
following findings:
A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use
of the lot. The proposed project is in a RS-2 zoning district in which the primary use
of the lot is residential. The proposed grading is to notch the proposed residence
into the existing extreme slope to accommodate a split-story residence and
construct ancillary site improvements such as terraced retaining walls, usable
private outdoor area in the east side yard, and circular two-way driveway approach
in the public right-of-way.
B. The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the
visual relationships with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring
properties. The proposed residence and ancillary site improvements will be notched
into the down-sloping lot and appear as a single-story residence from the street
A-5
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 6 of 18
level. Moreover, the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade to
accommodate a split-story residence rather than a conventional three-story
structure.
C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural. Minimum grading is proposed underneath
the building footprint to preserve the natural contours through the creation of crawl
spaces instead of fill and the grading in the public right-of-way is necessary for
access purposes. In addition, the project has been revised to reduce the scope of
the ancillary site improvements along the east side yard while providing for Fire
Department access around the residence.
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and
appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or
manufactured slope into natural topography. Terraced retaining walls will be
constructed along the side and rear yards that descend with the down-sloping
contours and improved with landscaping. In addition, the proposed fill in the public
right-of-way to create access into the proposed residence will be level with the
existing street (Palos Verdes Drive East), providing adequate passage that appears
more natural adjacent to the proposed residence. The remaining slopes beyond the
proposed project will be preserved and will not be altered.
E. The grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate
neighborhood character as noted in Section 2G above.
F. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. A biology report
reviewed and approved by the City Biologist found that the proposed grading area
does not contain natural landscape or wildlife habitat. In addition, avoidance
measures have been imposed as part of the Conditions of Approval to ensure there
are no significant impacts to sensitive nesting species in the project vicinity.
G. The grading conforms to the standards regarding the maximum finished slopes and
restricted grading areas. However, grading will occur over an extreme slope,
exceed the maximum depth of cut or fill, and exceed the retaining wall height
standards. The proposed grading may deviate from the criteria as it is consistent
with the purposes of a Grading Permit set forth in RPVMC §17.76.040. The purpose
of the proposed grading is to permit reasonable development of land, e nsuring the
maximum preservation of natural scenic character of the area consistent with
reasonable economic use of such property; and that such project complies with all
goals and polices of the General Plan, any specific plan and any amendments. The
proposed grading will occur on extreme slope (proposed: average 43% steepness)
with nearly half of the lot zoned Open Space Hazard, albeit no improvements are
proposed on such zoning district. Due to the steepness of the existing slope, the
maximum depth of grading will exceed 5 feet (proposed: 6 feet of cut and 9 feet of
A-6
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 7 of 18
fill for the residence and a maximum depth of 17.5 feet of fill in the public right-of-
way) to accommodate the proposed residence and create a circular two -way
driveway access from the street. In addition, the existing down-sloping lot
configuration requires multiple retaining walls in and around the project site that will
exceed one 3.5-foot downslope wall (proposed: up to 9 feet) and a 5-foot retaining
wall adjacent to the driveway (proposed: up to 14.1 feet). The proposed grading
deviations will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity since most of the properties south of
Palos Verdes Drive East share comparable topographical conditions that will also
require similar deviations. Furthermore, the proposed grading deviations will not be
detrimental to the public safety nor to other properties as compliance with the
Building Code, approval by the City’s geologist, and a series of inspections will be
required throughout project construction. Lastly, a Notice of Decision will be
provided to interested parties and adjacent property owners.
Section 5: The City Council finds that the Variance 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, and building height exceeding the 26 feet/30 feet height envelope
are warranted based on the following findings:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply
generally to other property in the same zoning district. The existing average slope
steepness of the project site is 43% with an elevation difference between the street
of access and the proposed residence at approximately 14.5 feet in height. Under
such circumstances, the structure height gradually increases as it is built further
towards the rear of the property due to the steep slope, in which the building height
and wall height limitations of the RPVMC cannot reasonably accommodate
improvements on the project site.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners
under like conditions in the same zoning district. As a legally created lot zoned for
single-family residence, the property owner has the right to development the project
site to accommodate the proposed residence and ancillary site improvements. Due
to down-sloping lot configuration, the proposed residence will be notched into the
slope as a split-story residence. The steepness of the lot is not commonly present
in other developed lots with the same zoning district which will result in the the
height of the proposed residence to exceed the 26 feet/30 feet height envelope at
up to 35.75 feet/44.5 feet. In addition, the height of the walls surrounding the
residence and ancillary site improvements will also exceed the limitations set forth
in §17.76.030(C)(1)(a) & (b) of the RPVMC in order to support the proposed
development on a lot with an average slope steepness of 43%.
A-7
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 8 of 18
C. That granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located.
The Applicant’s geotechnical report and biology report have been reviewed prior to
deeming the application complete for processing to ensure there will be no
significant impacts in terms of the geology or biological resources. In addition, the
proposed construction including the height of the building and walls will be required
to adhere to the California Building Code during the Building & Safety Division plan
check process.
D. That granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the general plan
or the policies and requirements of the coastal specific plan. The project site is not
located in the City’s Coastal Specific Plan and the use of the property is consistent
with the General Plan Land Use Policy No. 3 (p. L-7) to “encourage and assist in
the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to
maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design.”
Section 6: The City Council 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 warranted as the improvements comply with all applicable
Code requirements, provided that the maximum allowable wall height within and outside of
the front yard setback and overall structure height deviations are granted through a
Variance as noted in Section 4.
Section 7: The City Council finds that the Encroachment Permit for 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 are warranted based on the following
findings:
A. The encroachment is not detrimental to the public health/safety, and that the
Public Works Director has made a written determination that the encroachment
does not pose a hazard to vehicular traffic, pedestrians, or equestrians; and
further that all other requirements for issuance of a Public Works Department
encroachment permit are met. The proposed project was reviewed by the Traffic
Safety Committee on several occasions to ensure, among other things, that
adequate site distance is provided to and from the project site. As a result,
appropriate modifications to the two-way driveway approach and conditions
were recommended to be imposed, such as limiting ingress to the west
driveway and delineating an 8-foot passageway for trail purposes as part of the
Planning entitlement.
B. The encroaching structure cannot be reconfigured or relocated due to pr actical
difficulties as it will require the proposed residence to be shifted at least 26 feet
to the rear of the property from its current location that will entail costly
A-8
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 9 of 18
development. Not only will it require additional grading, higher retaining walls,
and intensify the bulk and mass of the residence by increasing the overall
height, it will also result in encroaching into the Open Space Hazard Zone at the
rear of the property, which is designated to prevent unsafe development of
hazardous areas that must be preserved or regulated for public health and
safety purposes.
C. The encroaching structure is not inconsistent with the general intent of the
Development Code. By allowing the proposed improvements to encroach into
the public right-of-way, it will help define the ingress and egress of the two-way
driveway. In addition, the proposed encroachment will be consistent with the
general intent of the Municipal Code to promote the public health, safety, and
general welfare while accommodating reasonable development and minimizing
hazards.
D. Illuminating elements of the encroaching structure are configured in a manner
that minimizes impact to neighboring properties or vehicular traffic, and prevents
direct or indirect illumination of a property other than the Applica nt’s, as
determined by the Director of Community Development. Specifically, low voltage
light fixtures up to 24 inches in height in the public right-of-way for landscaping
purposes are proposed to be shielded.
E. The encroaching structure does not significan tly impair a protected view from
any surrounding property. Due to the nature of the existing project site that
slopes down significantly from the edge of the paved street and topographic
conditions in the area, properties in the vicinity will not be impacted.
Section 8: 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.
Section 9: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby overturns the Planning Commission’s decision,
and approves the appeal, thereby conditionally approving 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, subject to the
Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit “A”.
A-9
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 10 of 18
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on 17th day of August 2021.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Eric Alegria, Mayor
Attest:
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2021-__, was duly adopted by the City Council of said City at a
regular meeting thereof held on August 17, 2021.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
A-10
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 11 of 18
EXHIBIT ‘A’
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING CASE NO. PLVA2018-0001
(HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, VARIANCE, SITE
PLAN REVIEW, AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT)
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
General Conditions:
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant
and/or 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 Exhibit
“A”. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the
date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceeding s (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any
of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, se t aside, void,
or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City a nd/or any of
its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or
concerning the project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Work s.
4. 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 (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. Pursuant to RPVMC §17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is
authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the
conditions of approval if such modifications will achie ve substantially the same
results as would strict compliance with the approved plans an d conditions.
Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require
approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new
and separate environmental review and public notification.
A-11
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 12 of 18
6. 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 RPVMC, including but not limited to
height, setback and lot coverage standards.
7. 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 pr ocedures
contained in RPVMC §17.86.060 or administrative citations as described in RPVMC
Chapter 1.16.
8. 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 R PVMC
§17.86.070 within one year of the final effective date of this Notice of Decision,
approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to
expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development
Department and approved by the Director.
9. In the event that any of these conditions confl ict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
10. 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 approval.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified
on the stamped approved plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or
legal non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal
or legal non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or
on the stamped approved plans.
12. 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 mate rial 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.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on
a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable
bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be
placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property
A-12
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 13 of 18
owners, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official.
14. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting
property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30
calendar days shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in RPVMC
§17.56.020(C). Unless required to protect against a safety hazard, temporary
construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than 15 days prior to
commencement of construction.
15. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6 :00 PM, Monday
through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, with no construction activity
permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in RPVMC §17.96.920.
During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park,
queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before
7:00 AM Monday through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance
with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do
so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-
site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties,
subject to approval by the Building Official.
16. Exterior residential lighting shall comply with the standards of RPVMC §17.56.030.
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.
17. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the Applicant shall employ
effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
18. The Applicant shall remove the project silhouette within 7 days after a final decision
has been rendered and the City’s appeal process has been exhausted.
Project Specific Conditions:
19. This approval shall allow for the following:
A. Construct a new 3,975 ft² three-story residence with an attached 1,310 ft²
two-story garage, resulting in a total structure size of 5,285 ft²;
B. Construct 911 ft² of balcony areas along the east and rear (south) façade of
the proposed residence;
C. Increase the wall heights within the front yard setback up to 19.25 feet in
height and up to 24 feet in height outside of the front yard setback through a
Variance;
A-13
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 14 of 18
D. Construct improvements in the public right-of-way to provide access to the
proposed residence including, two new driveways, curb cuts, retaining wal ls,
and planters with an Encroachment Permit;
E. Construct ancillary site improvements including a pool, spa, trash enclosure,
planters, stairways, freestanding/combination/retaining walls to support the
proposed improvements;
F. Conduct 751 yd³ of total grading for the private property consisting of 75 yd³
of cut and 676 yd³ of fill with a max imum cut and fill of 6 feet and 9 feet,
respectively; and,
G. Conduct 946 yd³ of total grading in the public right-of-way consisting of 946
yd³ of fill with a maximum fill of 17.5 feet to accommodate the proposed
improvements.
BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer PRIOR TO THE FRAMING INSPECTION.
20. The height of the approved residence shall be as depicted on the st amped
APPROVED plans and in no case shall the height of the residence extend above a
height of 35.75 feet, as measured from the average elevation of the setback line
abutting the street access (elev. 634.75 feet) to the highest proposed roof ridgeline
(elev. 670.50 feet); and an overall height of 44.5 feet, as measured from the lowest
finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 626.00 feet) to the highest proposed
roof ridgeline (elev. 670.50 feet). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer PRIOR TO
ROOF SHEATHING INSPECTION, based on the above-mentioned instructions.
21. The proposed residence shall maintain setbacks of 10-foot front, 47 foot-8 inch
west side, 12 foot-11 inch east side, and a 75 foot-5 inch rear. SETBACK
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer PRIOR TO POURING FOUNDATIONS.
22. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
project within the RS-2 zoning district shall maintain a maximum of 30.53% lot
coverage.
23. The project site shall maintain a minimum of three-enclosed parking spaces at all
times. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no
less than 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, with a minimum 7-foot vertical
clearance. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space
of no less than 9 feet in width by 20 feet in depth.
24. Driveways, paved walkways and parking areas shall not cover more than 50% of
the required 10-foot front setback area. Any pervious or semi-pervious surface
which is part of or within a driveway or parking area shall not be considered to be
landscaping.
A-14
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 15 of 18
25. All colors and materials for the structure and roof shall be as shown in the stamped
APPROVED plans.
26. The maintenance or operation of mechanical equipment, including but not limited to
air conditioning units or pool filters, generating noise levels in excess of 65 dBA as
measured from the closest property line shall constitute a public nuisan ce in
accordance to Chapter 8.24 of the RPVMC.
27. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on the balcony and roof deck
shall not exceed a height of 8 feet or the bottom of the roof eave, whichever is
lower, as measured from the finished floor of the deck.
28. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on the balcony and roof deck
which exceed the height limits established in RPVMC §17.02.040, shall not
significantly impair a view from surrounding properties.
29. The Applicant shall comply with the following conditions as part of the
Encroachment Permit reviewed by the Traffic Safety Committee on November 25,
2019, September 28, 2020, and April 26, 2021:
A. Egress in either direction (left or right turn out) shall be allowed from either
driveway approach.
B. Ingress, including left turn in, shall be restricted to the westerly driveway only.
C. The easterly driveway shall be gated and opened for egress only. A sign on
the gate indicating “no entry” or “exit only” shall be installed and visible by
drivers on Palos Verdes Drive East.
D. Shrubbery on the westbound side of Palos Verdes Drive East shall be
periodically trimmed or removed by the property owner to allow for adequate
ingress/egress and site distance visibility as determined by the Public Works
Department.
E. Locate and verify all existing utilities to be shown on the Site Plan.
F. Construct the retaining wall (caisson) identified on sheet no. at C-3 least 1 foot
south from the property line.
G. Construct side yard retaining walls along the east and west to the edge of the
roadway.
H. Construct a 8-foot wide trail in the driveway per Attachment B (Cross Section
of Proposed Development) of the November 25, 2019 TSC Staff Report.
A-15
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 16 of 18
I. PRIOR TO BUILDING/GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE, Applicant to provide
confirmation from all franchise utilities affected that there are no issues with
the proposed development.
J. PRIOR TO BUILDING/GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE, obtain Los Angeles
County Fire Department approval of the revised plans.
K. PRIOR TO BUILDING/GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE, execute a Covenant
and Agreement for the property owner to assume responsibility regarding
patching and general maintenance of the proposed driveway, public trail, and
retaining walls within the public right-of-way. If the City or any franchised utility
company is to remove all or any portion of the driveway or trail, the
replacement or repair for the damaged/removed driveway will be with asphalt.
The property owner will make the permanent repairs using concrete. In
addition, shrubbery on the westbound side of Palos Verdes Drive East shall be
periodically trimmed or removed by the property owner to allow for adequate
ingress/egress and site distance visibility as determined by the Public Works
Department. This Covenant and Agreement will be prepared by the City
Attorney's Office and will include the necessary provisions regarding the items
encroaching in the public right-of-way, as well as signage. The cost associated
with preparing and recording the Covenant and Agreement shall be borne by
the Applicant and run with the property.
L. PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, provide certification on backfill
with compaction, in the area encompassed by the east and west retaining
walls, along the property line, and within the public right-of-way.
M. Construct a safety shoulder with mountable curb along the westbound side of
Palos Verdes Drive East across from the subject address as approved by the
City Engineer. The cost of designing and constructing the safety shoulder and
mountable curb along the westbound side of Palos Verdes Drive East shall be
borne by the Applicant.
N. Store and/or placement of any materials, equipment or object of any kind
within 10 feet of the paved asphalt surface of the proposed development on
Palos Verdes Drive East shall be prohibited.
30. The Applicant shall comply with all avoidance measures from the approved biology
report dated May 3, 2019, which are imposed as follows:
A. WITHIN 3 DAYS PRIOR TO ANY VEGETATION CLEARING OR
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES PLANNED TO OCCUR DURING THE
NESTING BIRD SEASON (January 1 through September 15), a nesting bird
survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that birds are not
A-16
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 17 of 18
engaged in active nesting within or immediately adjacent to the project site. If
construction activities using heavy equipment (i.e., graders, bulldozers, and
excavators, etc.) cease for longer than 5 days and then resume within the
nesting bird season, a follow-up survey is required. Each nesting bird survey
shall include the work area and areas adjacent to the site (within 500 feet, as
possible) that could potentially be affected by project related activities
including but not limited to noise, vibration, increased human activity, dust, etc.
For any active nest(s) identified, the qualified biologist shall establish an
appropriate buffer zone around the active nest(s). The appropriate buffer shall
be determined by the qualified biologist based on species, location, and the
nature of the proposed activities. Project activities shall be avoided within the
buffer zone until the nest is deemed no longer active, as determined by the
qualified biologist.
B. If some vegetation within the riparian area is required by the Fire Department
to be trimmed at some future time, the Applicant shall contact the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) with respect for the need for a
Streambed Alternation Agreement (SAA) for this Site.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE
31. All applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety
Division, shall be approved by the City’s Geologist.
32. A drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
33. An earth hauling permit shall be approved by the Public Works Department.
34. The Applicant shall be responsible for all City costs incurred for the bird nesting
surveys as noted in Condition No. 30A, including submittal of an initial trust deposit
in the amount of $500.
PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
35. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from an
existing power pole or other point of connection off-site.
36. The Applicant shall submit complete Landscape Plans and associated Trust
Deposit to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development that include the following:
The final approved landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the residence. The landscape plans may be required to comply with
the State of California Water Efficient Landscape requirements, as determined by
the City’s landscape consultant.
A-17
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 18 of 18
Upon completion of the installation of the landscaped areas or altered landscaped
area subject to RPVMC §15.34.100, the project Applicant shall submit a certificate
of completion, in the form provided by the City, for review and approval by the
Director of Community Development. The certificate of completion shall be
executed by either the licensed landscaped architect, licensed landscap e contractor
or the certified irrigation designer that signed any of the documents submitted as
part of the landscape documentation package.
A-18
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
B-1
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
B-2
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
B-3
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
B-4
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
B-5
1
Jaehee Yoon
From:De Langis, David (FAA) <David.De.Langis@faa.gov>
Sent:Thursday, June 24, 2021 5:29 PM
To:Jaehee Yoon
Cc:luis@envirotechno.com
Subject:Letter to City Council with Attachments
Attachments:17.02.030 - Development standards. RPV.pdf; 28160 SAFETY SHOULDER CONFIG 3-25-21pdf.pdf;
Driveway Concrete Deck Layout 3-01-21.pdf; JMC Sight Distance Letter to the City 6-19-20 -
20200619.pdf; FW: 28160 PV Dr. E. Safety Shoulder Plan; Wildan 28160 FINAL PVDE Updated Sight
Distance Memorandum 2020-06-29.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To: The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Attn: Ms. Jaehee Yoon
RE: City Of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Resolution number 2021-09 denying
without prejudice the height variation, major grading permit, variance, site plan review and
encroachment permit. Case number PLVA2018-001.
28160 Palos Verdes Dr. E.
Dear Jaehee,
Please except this email as my formal request to the City Council to appeal the above
referenced planning commission resolution. I believe the planning commission was largely
unprepared, confused and/or misinformed with respect to the following issues pertaining to my
application as referenced above:
Traffic safety
Grading
Height variance and building elevations
Building mass.
It was clear throughout the hearing that the committee members lacked a comprehensive
understanding of the critical issues discussed. One particularly troubling issue is the fact that
Willdan Engineering who is the Traffic Safety Consultant hired by The City to represent the
City’s interest was not invited to participate in the hearing. Since most of the hearing was
focused on traffic Safety, the questions raised by the Commissioners were un-
answered. Moreover, the Commissioners were almost completely unaware of the June 26th
2020 Willdan Traffic Study which was presented to the City Traffic Safety Committee, who
C-1
2
determined the traffic conditions to be compliant with the required AASHTO standards. Any
person who read said report and approvals by the TSC would have no problem understanding
the 85th percentile speed surveyed by Willdan Engineering is 30 MPH at the curve passing my
property. The Commission Members however, debated at great length whether the speed was
35mph or 38 mph or otherwise. This fact clearly indicates that the PC was ill-informed, had not
read the Willdan Engineering report, or my own Traffic Study submitted to the TSC and
approved by the TSC on four occasions. Chair Leon commented that “…the staff report only
reference is 35mph … nowhere showing 30mph…” Commissioner Lan commented that she
reviewed the Staff Report and was “confused” …I don’t see anything specific..,.” Moreover,
Commissioner Lan was confused by the Bronco Road report which is clearly not the report
prepared by Willdan Engineering specifically for my property, on behalf of the City. Reference
Willdan Engineering Report dated June 26th, 2020 and the June 19th, 2020 Traffic Study Report
prepared and submitted to the TSC on my behalf as prepared by JMC Consultants, attached
herewith.
As for the grading issues, I proposed an alternate driveway solution such that a concrete deck
would be constructed rather than a retaining wall, back-filled with earth. This concept was
proposed to Elias Sassoon which would eliminate approximately 1,000 cubic yards of
earth. Mr. Sassoon opposed the concept siting future concern for the City in the event PV Drive
East would be widened. Therefore, the grading quantities are based upon the concepts
determined to be in the City’ best interests and or preferences.
As for the height variance, my building height is based upon several factors:
Specific Fire Department requirements such that emergency vehicles must enter and exit
my property in one direction with no backing onto PV Dr. East for egress, and no
downward sloping driveway.
City liability mitigation measures with respect to flooding due to water runoff from PV
Dr. East onto my property.
The possibility that the City requires widening PV Dr. East in which case, I must
anticipate an elevated roadway as is the case with the horse trail already planned along
my property.
Municipal Code requirements such that the garage is directly accessed off of PV Dr.
East. Commissioner Churra asked my architect “… I’m not clear why we need a garage
at street level…” A comment clearly indicating the commission’ lack of understanding
of the Municipal code. Reference Code Section 17.2.02.030(E) attached herewith.
As for building size, given the unique site conditions of my lot, I understand surface
parking is limited. Therefore, I chose design a subterranean garage which increases the
overall size, albeit, not visible. Also, in an effort to accommodate the Commission
C-2
3
concerns, my architect and I reduce the proposed size by approximately 900 sq. ft. many
months ago.
These are just a few examples of the Planning Commissions misunderstanding and/or lack of
understanding of my application and many more examples can be observed by reviewing the
recorded video of the May 11th. hearing. Therefore, as previously stated, I wish to appeal said
decision to the City Council.
Sincerely,
David J. de Langis.
C-3
Municipal Code
17.02.030 - Development standards.
E. Parking/Driveway Standards.
1. Not Applicable: A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and
maintained in a garage, and a minimum of two unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided
and maintained as a driveway, on the property of each single-family dwelling unit containing
less than 5,000 square feet of habitable space, as determined by the director.
2. A minimum of three enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a
garage, and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and
maintained as a driveway, on the property of each single-family dwelling unit containing 5,000
square feet or more of habitable space, as determined by the director.
3. A garage with a direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be located
less than 20 feet from the front or street-side property line, whichever is the street of access.
4. Not Applicable: In addition to the parking requirements for the primary single-family
residence on a property, parking for city-approved accessory dwelling units shall be provided
in accordance with Chapter 17.10 (Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
Development Standards).
5. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than
nine feet in width by 20 feet in depth, with a minimum of seven feet of vertical clearance over
the space. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less
than nine feet in width by 20 feet in depth.
6. The following minimum driveway widths and turning radii shall be provided for all
driveways leading from the street of access to a garage or other parking area on a residential
parcel:
a. A driveway shall be a minimum width of ten feet; and
b. A paved 25-foot turning radius shall be provided between the garage or other
parking area and the street of access for driveways which have an average slope of ten
percent or more, and which are 50 feet or more in length.
7. Driveways shall take into account the driveway standards required by the department
of public works for driveway entrances located in the public right-of-way.
C-4
8. Not Applicable: A driveway that is located adjacent to a side property line shall
provide a minimum 18-inch-wide landscaped area between the side property line and the
adjacent driveway, unless such buffer would reduce the minimum width of the driveway to
less than ten feet, in which case the width of the landscape buffer may be narrowed or
eliminated at the discretion of the director.
9. All driveways shall be built and maintained in accordance with the specifications of the
Los Angeles County Fire Department. If there is any inconsistency between the standards
imposed by this chapter and the standards imposed by the Los Angeles County Fire
Department, the stricter shall apply.
10. Unless otherwise expressly permitted elsewhere in this title, enclosed tandem parking
spaces may only be used for parking spaces in excess of the minimum requirements of
subsections (1) and (2) of this section, provided that each space meets the minimum
dimensions specified in subsection (5) of this section.
***END OF SECTION***
C-5
C-6
C-7
JMC2 Civil Engineering + Surveying
Tel: 310-241-6550 | 411 N. Harbor Boulevard, Suite 201, San Pedro, CA 90731 | www.jmc-2.com
June 19, 2020
City of RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Attn: Mr. Elias Sassoon
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: EASTERLY DRIVEWAY MEETS SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS AT 28160 PALOS
VERDES DR EAST - RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA (PLANNING CASE NO.
PLVA2018-0001)
Dear Mr. Sassoon,
The Site
The project site is located along Palos Verdes Drive East between Headland Drive and Sunnyside
Ridge Road. Proposed, is a new single-family residence, with proposed improvements including
a two-way driveway. The proposed dwelling unit will face north with driveways are proposed west
and east of the building.
Palos Verdes Drive East is classified as a minor arterial roadway. Average ADT appears to be in
the range of 12,000-15,000 vehicles per day likely operating at LOS D-F during commute periods
(general observation). Both travel lanes are 12’ wide with 2-3’ paved shoulders on each side.
Based on field measurements on site, the WB/SB lane is climbing at 5.16%. The site is located
on the convex (outside) part of a 195’ radius curve (per survey).
Earlier Determination
Through earlier evaluations, the following was determined;
• Left/right turns out of either driveway are possible (200 foot sight distance available).
• Using a prevailing speed of 38 MPH, left turns into the site would not work
• Using posted speeds of 25 MPH, left turns into the site are possible.
• Wildan collected radar data in the curve establishing a prevailing speed of 30 MPH.
Current Evaluation
First, establish available sight distance
Braking Reaction = 110.3 ft (2018 AASHTO, Table 3.1)
C-8
28160 Palos Verdes Dr East
June 19, 2020 – Site Distance Analysis
City of RANCHO PALOS VERDES
2
Braking Distance = V2 / [30((a / 32.2) ± G / 100)] (2018 AASHTO, Equation 3-3)
Where: V = speed (30 mph), a = deceleration rate (11.2 ft/s2 assumed), 5.16 = percent
grade
Braking Distance = 75.220ft
Stopping Sight Distance = Braking (Reaction + Distance) = 110.3 + 75.1=185.4 or 186’
Backcheck SSD at 30 MPH@6% Grade = 184’ (2018 AASHTO, Table 3.2)
Second, establish points of measurement and measure
Taillight of turning vehicle is likely to be first thing observed.
Because the turning vehicle is making a left turn, it will likely be offset 2’ from the
centerline. Taken to a position of the left tail light
Observing vehicle is entering the curve and will likely be offset 2’ from the centerline, taken
from the position the driver will likely sit.
Observed/measured sight line (see Attached Pacific Lands Consulting Survey), 200’
Observed/measured sight line is void of existing physical features and/or vegetation.
The observed sight line is a Chord measurement of a circle. Actual sight distance needs to be
measure along the length of the curve to reflect actual stopping sight distance.
Therefore, with a 195 foot chord and a radius of 200’, the length will be 210’ (See attached ACAD
Summary).
The 210’ available meets the 186’ standard, therefore left turns into the east driveway can be
permitted with no further mitigation.
In closing, Stopping Sight Distance provided in the AASTHO Manual are considered “a
comfortable deceleration for most drivers.” This means that cars are expected to stop well short
of the 186’ needed based on existing conditions. This is similar to calculations that were made
for that curve, while it is signed for 25 MPH (a comfortable speed), the prevailing speed is 30
MPH.
C-9
28160 Palos Verdes Dr East
June 19, 2020 – Site Distance Analysis
City of RANCHO PALOS VERDES
3
Findings
The 210’ actual stopping distance, verified by the licensed surveyor, exceeds the 186’ standard,
therefore, left turns into the east driveway meet the safety standards and as such, are allowed
with no further mitigation requirements necessary.
Further, this supports the proposal that the east driveway be used for entering and the west
driveway to exit.
Should you have any questions, please contact Khaled Abdo, PE, Sr. Project Manager, at
310.214.6550 x 308.
Best regards,
JMC2 Civil Engineering
Richard C.Tippett, (TR 2119)
Traffic Engineer
Enclosures:
Sight Distance Survey Plan dated 06/15/2020 sign and stamped by license Surveyor Mr.
Christopher Vassallo.
SSD Based on 200’ Chord.
C-10
6/15/2020C-11
/
G)
^.
^^
a(9\%.<0
"0^
C-12
1
Memorandum
TO: Elias Sassoon, Director of Public Works
FROM: Vanessa Munoz, PE, TE, PTOE
Traffic Engineer
DATE: June 26, 2020
SUBJECT: 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) - Updated Sight Distance
Memorandum
On June 10, 2020 the City of Rancho Palos Verdes held a Traffic Safety Committee (TSC)
meeting to discuss the sight distance measurements for the driveways being proposed for ingress
and egress to the property being developed at 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East, the safety of the
proposed driveways and alternatives that would improve safety. At the TSC a traffic
memorandum was presented to the committee members that provided changes to the traffic
engineering report previously prepared by JMC2 dated June 7, 2019. The committee members
requested the new report prepared by JMC2 dated June 10, 2020 be reviewed for the findings
and recommendations and once completed be brough back to the committee members at the
next meeting to discuss it.
On June 23, 2020 a field sight distance analysis was performed by myself, the Consultant Traffic
Engineer, a traffic engineering assistant and Mr. Elias Sassoon, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Director of Public Works to collect the field measurements for the sight distances accurately. The
analysis consisted of setting up the sight distance measurements using orange cones and taking
field measurements from the location of the proposed vehicles location turning in and out of the
driveway from a height of 3.5 ft ( line of sight of drivers) and offset 10-feet back from edge of
pavement at the driveways. The standard dimensions used are minimum recommended by
AASHTO for sight distance measurements. Furthermore, two officers from the Lomita Sheriff’s
station assisted us to stop traffic in time intervals to have the street available for a clear line of
sight and record the measurements. The following is the summary of the scenarios we tested in
the field.
Exhibit A – Sight Distance between Vehicle B traveling westbound (WB) and turning left into west
approach driveway with Vehicle A traveling westbound behind it.
Exhibit B – Sight Distance between Vehicle B traveling westbound and turning left into east
approach property driveway with Vehicle A traveling westbound behind it.
Exhibit C – Sight distance between Vehicle B turning left out of west approach driveway and
vehicle A traveling westbound and/or eastbound on PVDE
Exhibit D – Sight distance between Vehicle B turning left out of east approach driveway and
vehicle A traveling westbound and/or eastbound on PVDE
C-13
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
28160 Palos Verdes Drive East – De Langis Residence
Updated Memorandum
June 26, 2020
Page 2
Per the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) the
minimum stopping sight distance for 30 mph is 200-feet. A speed radar survey was collected on
Wednesday May 20, 2020 for the speeds being driven by vehicles around the curve. The 85 th
percentile, which is the speed utilized to calculate sight distance, came out to be 30 mph. It is
industry practice for sight distance analysis to use the 85th percentile of the road and not just the
curve, since the curve speed is much lower than that of the segment and was collected on the
curve, no further reduction for roadway geometrics and grades should be allocated to the sight
distance. Table 1 below summarizes the findings of our field observations
Table 1
Exhibit Location Movement Min. Sight
Distance
Field Sight
Distance
Meets
Minimum
Requirements
A West
approach
Westbound left turns from
PVDE into driveway
200-feet 155-feet No
B
East
approach
Westbound left turns from
PVDE into driveway
200-feet 145-feet No
C West
approach
Left turn out of driveway
with conflicting movement
for EB/WB PVDE vehicles
200-feet 189-feet (WB)
461-feet (EB)
No
Yes
D East
approach
Left turn out of driveway
with conflicting movement
for EB/WB PVDE vehicles
200-feet 185-feet (WB)
240-feet (EB)*
No
Yes
*Not field verified
The left turn movements into and out of the property do not meet the minimum 200-feet sight
distance length (Exhibit A and B). The westbound left turns from PVDE into the east and west
driveways provide a sight distance of 145-feet and 155-feet. Additionally, when vehicles are
turning left out of the driveways onto PVDE (Exhibit C and D) the sight distance between the
driver and vehicles traveling westbound ranges between185-189-feet and for vehicles traveling
eastbound ranges between 240-461 feet. Since PVDE has traffic in both directions, the minimum
sight distances when vehicles are turning left out of the driveway onto PVDE must be met in both
directions for left turns to be permitted. Therefore, the only movements that could be permitted
out of these driveways without any other improvements would be right turn only.
To provide a safe condition “No Left turn” signs for the ingress and egress of the property would
be a potential solution. The signs would notify drivers that the left turn movements are illegal and
would provide the tool for enforcement by the Sheriff’s department should someone be in violation
of the movement. The advantage of installing the signs is that the driver has been notified of the
illegal turn. However, most drivers tend to not always obey signs and would tend to violate the
signage if they perceive they can make the turn safely. A safe solution is the installation of a two
way center lane for the length of the street that would allow vehicles turning left in and out of the
C-14
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
28160 Palos Verdes Drive East – De Langis Residence
Updated Memorandum
June 26, 2020
Page 3
property to utilize this center lane as a refuge and then make the left turn in and out of the property
safely without blocking the thru traffic, therefore eliminating the possibility of the rear end collision
and remediating the lack of sight distance. The installation of this center lane would no longer
require the Right Turn Only signage at the driveways.
RECOMMENDATION
As presented in the June 10, 2020 Traffic and Safety Committee meeting, in the previously
prepared report dated June 2, 2020 the recommended solution that provides the greatest safety
to drivers in and out of the driveways as well as those traveling along PVDE is the installation of
the two way center lane. Furthermore, the two way center lane should be implemented prior to
the beginning of construction for the development of this lot to provide a refuge for construction
vehicles in and out of the property; therefore not just increasing safety when the house is occupied
but also during the construction phase. Finally, it is recommended a singular westerly driveway
be constructed in coordination with the fire department. Doing so will reduce the conflict points for
ingress and egress and significantly increase safety.
C-15
PVDEPVDE28160
28160 PVDECity of Ranco Palos VerdesExhibit ASight Distance at 28160 PVDEDeLangis ResidenceLegend:Public R-O-WAvailable Sight DistanceMinimum Stopping Sight Distance 200'(for vehicles approaching at 30mph)Westbound Vehicle turning at DrivewayWestbound Thru Traffic VehiclesObstructed View due to Tree CanopyC-16
PVDEPVDE28160
28160 PVDECity of Ranco Palos VerdesExhibit BSight Distance at 28160 PVDEDeLangis ResidenceLegend:Public R-O-WAvailable Sight DistanceMinimum Stopping Sight Distance 200'(for vehicles approaching at 30mph)Westbound Vehicle turning at DrivewayWestbound Thru Traffic VehiclesObstructed View due to Tree CanopyC-17
PVDE28160
28160 PVDECity of Ranco Palos VerdesExhibit CSight Distance at 28160 PVDEDeLangis ResidenceLegend:Public R-O-WAvailable Sight DistanceMinimum Stopping Sight Distance 200'(for vehicles approaching at 30mph)Vehicle turning from DrivewayThru Traffic VehiclesObstructed View due to Tree CanopyC-18
PVDEPVDE28160
28160 PVDECity of Ranco Palos VerdesExhibit DSight Distance at 28160 PVDEDeLangis ResidenceLegend:Public R-O-WAvailable Sight DistanceMinimum Stopping Sight Distance 200'(for vehicles approaching at 30mph)Vehicle turning from DrivewayThru Traffic VehiclesObstructed View due to Tree CanopyC-19
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST,
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
DE LANGIS RESIDENCE
SHEET INDEX
PROPOSED PROJECT SCOPE
PROJECT INFORMATION
A. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
1. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LOT:27,837 SQ.FT.
2. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA:
FIRST STORY:
SECOND STORY:
GARAGE:
OTHER:
3. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT
(INCLUDING ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, ATTACHED OR DETACHED): 0.0 SQ.FT.
4. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS AND IMPERVIOUS
SURFACES (EXEMPT: IMPERVIOUS SURFACES LESS THAN 5 FEET IN WIDTH
AND/OR ONE PATIO AREAS LESS THAN 500 SQUARE FEET IN AREAS):0.0 SQ.FT.
5. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING LOT COVERAGE [LINE A3 + LINE A4]:0.0 SQ.FT.
6. PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING LOT COVERAGE [LINE A5 + LINE A1 X 100]:0.0%
7. HEIGHT OF EXISTING STRUCTURE, AS MEASURED FROM HIGHEST POINT
OF EXIST. GRADE COVERED BY STRUCTURE TO THE HIGHEST RIDGELINE
(FOR STRUCTURES ON SLOPING LOTS, PLEASE REFER TO THE HEIGHT
VARIATION GUIDELINES HANDOUT FOR HEIGHT REQUIRE.)0.0 FT.
B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA:
ENTRY LEVEL: 640 SQ.FT.
MIDDLE LEVEL:3,109 SQ.FT.
LOWER LEVEL: 226 SQ.FT.
TOTAL LIVING:3,975 SQ.FT.
UPPER GARAGE: 655 SQ.FT.
LOWER GARAGE: 655 SQ.FT.
BALCONIES: 911 SQ.FT.
2. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT
(INCLUDING ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, ATTACHED OR DETACHED): 4,375 SQ.FT.
3. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS AND IMPERVIOUS
SURFACES (EXEMPT: IMPERVIOUS SURFACES LESS THAN 5 FEET IN WIDTH
AND/OR ONE PATIO AREAS LESS THAN 500 SQUARE FEET IN AREAS):4,124 SQ.FT.
4. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE [LINE B2 + LINE B3]: 8,499 SQ.FT.
5. PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE [LINE B4 ÷ LINE A1 X 100]: 30.53%
6. HEIGHT OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE, AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST
FINISH GRADE COVERED BY STRUCTURE TO THE HIGHEST RIDGE LINE
(FOR STRUCTURES ON SLOPING LOTS, PLEASE REFER TO THE HEIGHT
VARIATION GUIDELINES HANDOUT FOR HEIGHT REQUIRE.)43.75 FT.
SHEET DESCRIPTION
·NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
·NEW SWIMMING POOL AND SPA (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)
·NEW DRIVEWAY AND HARDSCAPE AREAS
RS-2
V-N R-1
REQUIRED FULLY SPRINKLERED - SFD + GARAGE
ZONE:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
FIRE SPRINKLERS:
OCCUPANCY:
THAT PORTION OF LOT "H" OF THE RANCHO LOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ALLOTTED TO JETHAM BIXBY BY DEGREE OF
PARTITION IN SECTION "BIXBY, ET AL., VS BENT ET AL", CASE No. 2373 IN THE
SOUTHEAST NEWS AND DOWNEY CHAMPION, PUBLISHED DAILY EXCEPT
SATURDAY AND SUNDAY OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SAID STATE IN
AND FOR SAID COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND ENTERED IN BOOK 6, PAGE 57
OF JUDGMENTS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST EXTREMITY OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE IN
THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THE LAND SHOWN ON A LICENSED
SURVEYOR'S MAP FILED IN BOOK 64, PAGE 45 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS,
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SHOWN ON THE SAID MAP AS " N 45°25'25" E,
503.21 FEET"; THENCE N 58°05' W, 207.69 FEET; THENCE N 31°51' E, 50.00 FEET;
THENCE N 30°18' 28" E TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN
CURVE IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST, 90.00
FEET WIDE, AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
RECORDED IN BOOK 2894, PAGE 43 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 326.45 FEET, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 195.71 FEET; SAID
POINT ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE
NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 195.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY
ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE, 151.84 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY
ALONG A DIRECT LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
DAVID De LANGIS
ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE
116 SOUTH CATALINA AVE. SUITE 102
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES , CA 90275
PROJECT ADDRESS:
OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
CONTACT:
MR. LUIS DE MORAES, AIA
VOICE: 310.379.9716
EMAIL: luis@envirotechno.com
C. GRADING VOLUMES
(Private Property)
·CUT VOLUME 75.00 Cu.Yd.
·FILL VOLUME 676.00 Cu.Yd.
·MAX. CUT 6.00 Ft.
·MAX . FILL 9.00 Ft.
·HIGHEST ELEVATION 656.22
COVER SHEET
SURVEY PLAN
GRADING NOTES
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
GRADING SECTIONS
GRADING SECTIONS AND DETAILS
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
LID PLAN
SITE PLAN
LOWER LEVEL & MIDDLE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN & ROOF PLAN
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
SECTIONS
SECTIONS
SECTIONS
CS-1
CIVIL SHEETS
1
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS
A-1.0
A-3.0
A-3.1
A-7.0
A-7.1
A-8.0
A-8.1
A-8.2
GRADING VOLUMES
(Public Right Away)
·CUT VOLUME 00.00 Cu.Yd.
·FILL VOLUME 946.00 Cu.Yd.
·PRIVATE PROPERTY MAX. CUT: 6'
·PROW MAX. DEPTH: 17.5'
AS NOTEDCOVER SHEETCS-1
ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:PROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE + INTERIOR DESIGN
ENVIROTECHNO
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
SHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:
BF
LdMFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION15000 AVIATION BLVD. 5TH FLOORLAWNDALE, CA 90267DAVID DE LANGISPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 12/14/20Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the project for which they were prepared, and not for the construction of any other projects. Any use or reproduction of these drawings in whole or part by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited except with specific written consent of EnviroTechno Architecture.28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EASTRANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIADe LANGIS RESIDENCE116 SOUTH CATALINA AVE. SUITE 102
REDONDO BEACH, CA. 90277
voice: 310.379.9716
e-mail: luis@envirotechno.com
website: envirotechno.com
D-1
D-2
PRIVATE PROPERTY MAX. CUT: 6'
PRIVATE PROPERTY MAX. FILL: 9'
PROW MAX. DEPTH: 17.5'D-3
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
CONSTRUCTION NOTESLEGENDA
C-3
B
C-3
C
C-3
D
C-3
E
C-4
$FILEL$$DATE$$TIME$$PLTDRVS$1001020 30SCALE: 1" = 10'5DeLANGIS RESIDENCE
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN201700971" = 10'06/08/2018CLLJC-252CLD-4
EX. GUARD RAIL656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHTPLEDGE OF PAVEMENT2 %SLOPE2 %SLOPEMASTER BEDROOMMASTER BATHLOWER3 CAR GARAGE3 CAR GARAGECRAWL SPACECOLUMNCOLUMNSETBACK LINE
5.3 %SLOPECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWLSPACECRAWLSPACECAISSON43% AVERAGEEXISTING SLOPECONCRETEDRIVEWAY SLAB ONGRADE656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHTMASTER BEDROOMW.I.C.BEDROOMDECKENTRYPORCHHALLCOLUMNCUTEDGE OF PAVEMENTPLSETBACK
LINECRAWL SPACECRAWLSPACECRAWLSPACECAISSONOPEN43% AVERAGEEXISTING SLOPECONCRETEDRIVEWAY SLAB ONGRADEEX. GUARD RAIL656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHTMASTER BEDROOMW.I.C.BEDROOMDECKENTRYPORCHHALLCOLUMNCUTEDGE OF PAVEMENTPLSETBACKLINECRAWL SPACECRAWLSPACECRAWLSPACECAISSONOPEN43% AVERAGEEXISTING SLOPECONCRETEDRIVEWAY SLAB ONGRADE656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHTFILLFILLPLSETBACK LINEFILLPOOL
2 %SLOPECAISSONCONCRETEDRIVEWAYEDGE OF PAVEMENT43% AVERAGEEXISTING SLOPE$FILEL$$DATE$$TIME$$PLTDRVS$
Civil Engineering & Surveying
John M. Cruikshank Consultants, Inc.
411 N. Harbor Blvd, Suite 201
San Pedro, CA 90731
Phone: (310) 241-6550
www.jmc-2.com201700971" = 10'CLCLLJ06/08/2018DeLANGIS RESIDENCE
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
SECTIONS201700971" = 10'06/08/2018CLCLJLC-33 5SECTION A-ASCALE: 1" = 10'SECTION B-BSCALE: 1" = 10'SECTION C-CSCALE: 1" = 10'SECTION D-DSCALE: 1" = 10'D-5
PL656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHTLOWER3 CAR GARAGE3 CAR GARAGEHALLOFFICEENTRYMASTER BATHW.I.C.DINING ROOMFAMILY ROOM ROOMCOVER DECKOPEN GYM656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHTHALLCOLUMNPLCRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACE$FILEL$$DATE$$TIME$$PLTDRVS$
Civil Engineering & Surveying
John M. Cruikshank Consultants, Inc.
411 N. Harbor Blvd, Suite 201
San Pedro, CA 90731
Phone: (310) 241-6550
www.jmc-2.com201700971" = 10'CLCLLJ06/08/2018DeLANGIS RESIDENCE
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
SECTIONS AND DETAILS201700971" = 10'06/08/2018CLCLJLC-44 5SECTION E-ESCALE: 1" = 10'D-6
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
2CONSTRUCTION NOTESLEGEND1SANDBAG BARRIERFILTER INLET DETAIL$FILEL$$DATE$$TIME$$PLTDRVS$
Civil Engineering & Surveying
John M. Cruikshank Consultants, Inc.
411 N. Harbor Blvd, Suite 201
San Pedro, CA 90731
Phone: (310) 241-6550
www.jmc-2.com
De LANGIS RESIDENCE
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
EROSION CONTROL PLAN201700971" = 10'06/08/2018CLCLLJC-55 51001020 30SCALE: 1" = 10'5STORMWATER POLLUTION PLAN NOTESD-7
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
DNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDMA"C"
DMA"A"
DMA"B"
PLANTER BOX 1
PLANTER BOX 2
$FILEL$$DATE$$TIME$$PLTDRVS$10 0 10 20 30
SCALE: 1" = 10'
5 DeLANGIS RESIDENCE28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EASTRANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275LID PLAN20170097
1" = 10'
06/08/2018
CL
LJ
C-6
52
CL
1. THIS PLAN ACCURATE FOR HYDROLOGY MAP ONLY.
NOTE
LEGEND
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT ARE (DMA)
DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE
DIRECTION OF PIPE DRAINAGE
DOWNSPOUT PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
PROPERTY STORM DRAIN PIPE
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA
PROPOSED CONCRETE
TRENCH DRAIN
STORMWATER DESIGN SUMMARY :
PLANTER BOX AREA
REQUIRED XXX SF
PROVIDED 633 SF
D-8
N 31°51'00" EN 30°53'13" EN 58°05'00" WN 11°55'58" E50.00'106.01'182.76'207.69'D= 44°36'02"R= 195.06' L= 151.84'(650)SET 2" I.P. (FLUSH)(594.10) GRD. @ P/LCOR.ADJACENT RESIDENCEF.F.=(623.98) @ DOOR(554.94) GRD. @ P/LCOR.SET 2" I.P. (FLUSH)(
6
5
0
)(643.1)± GRD.@ P/L COR.(639.6)± GRD.@ P/L COR.(650)(655)(560)(570)(580)(580)(590)(589.75) GRD. @ ANGLEPNT. OF P/LSET 2" I.P. (FLUSH)(590)(600)(610)(620)(630)(640)(590)(600)(610)(620)(630)(640)± FLOW LINE OF CREEKXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXPALOSVERDESDRIVEEASTEX. CHAIN-LINK FENCEEX. CHAIN-LINK FENCE30.62'29.37'GASMETERWATERMETERSET N&TAG, R.C.E.20327, 29.37' O/S N'LY ON P/L PROD.,(650.39) ELEV. @TAG.(650.32)TOP A.C. BERM(650.02)F.L.(657.35)F.L.(6
5
7
.
6
3
)
T
O
P
A
.
C
.
B
E
R
M
(656.28)
F.L.
(656.73)
TOP A.C. BERM
(657.08) ELEV. @N'LY ON P/L PROD.,20327, 30.62' O/S SET N&TAG, R.C.E.TAG.TOP A.C. BERM(654.39)(653.98)F.L.(654.36)E.P.E.P.(652.35)(652.19)TOP A.C. BERM(651.91)F.L.(650.42)E.P.GUARD RAIL @ F.L. OF BERMCLCLCLCLCLA.C.PAVEMENTWALKTREE14"ØCONC W/JACUZZIEX. CHAIN-LINK FENCETHREE RAIL WOOD FENCETHREE RAIL WOOD FENCEEX. CHAUIN-LINK FENCE45'(621.54)F.S.(620.1)F.G.EX. 8" C.B.R.W.XXPWR
(600)(610)(620)(630)(640)(650)(655)(590)(610)(600)(590)(580)(570)(620)(630
)
(640
)
(650
)HAZARD ZONE25'-0"OPEN SPACECA-8.1BA-8.0CA-8.1BA-8.0DA-8.1DA-8.1AA-8.0AA-8.0FG. ELV.626.90DECK BELOW9'-0"20'-0"9'-0"DECKBELOWPOOLVERANDAEA-8.2EA-8.2F.F. ELV.654.60UPPER PATIOPOOL PATIOWATER COLLECTIONSITE PLANSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"NORTH9'-0"F.F. ELV.640.90F.F. ELV.640.90DRIVEWAYF.F. ELV.640.90POOL PATIODNLIGHT WELLSPA3 REQUIREDGUEST PARKINGDNDNDRIVEWAYFIRE TRUCK ACCESSDN5'-0"5'-0"10'-
0
"
FYS
B OUTLINE OFCOLUMN LOCATIONAT LOWER LEVELTYP.20'-0"DRIVEWAYDNSLOPING
W
A
L
L
OUTLINE OF RET. WALLBELLOWSLOPING W
A
L
L
SLOPING
W
A
L
L
SLOPING WALL SLOPING WALL
PLANTER PLANTER
A-7.14A-7.13A-7.026'-0" HT. TRASHENCLOSURETRASH AREA3'-0"INFINITY POOL EDGE75'-5"
3'-0"
5'-0"
25'-6
"A-7.01A-7.01F.S.656.25'F.S.655.86'2 %
SLO
P
E
F.S.656.702 %
SLOPEE.P.654.05'620.75 B.W.621.00 T.W.604.25 B.W.612.75 T.W.F.S.654.50T.O.R.644.40T.O.R.644.40T.O.R.637.40F.S.654.55T.O.R.637.402 %
SLOPE
2 %SLOPE5 %
SLO
P
E F.G.604.50F.S.633.90F.S.626.90B.S.644.64F.S.656.612 %SLOPE2 %SLOPE2 %SLOPET.O.R.615.00T.S.644.52B.S.632.55T.S.632.43B.S.613.97T.S.613.85B.S.605.03B.S.626.13T.S.625.94T.O.W.656.50650.00 B.W.655.60 T.W.645.00 B.W.655.60 T.W.641.50 B.W.655.60 T.W.T.O.R.637.40634.00 B.W.634.15 T.W.622.50 B.W.627.15 T.W.T.O.R.630.40F.S.626.75F.S.614.75F.S.611.50T.O.R.618.25T.O.R.629.63T.O.R.617.47T.O.R.608.53T.O.W.660.20T.O.R.660.11T.O.W.656.505'-0" TALL FENCEAND SELF-LATCHINGGATE670.50HIGHEST ROOFRIDGELINE626.00 F.G.LOWEST POINT670.50HIGHEST ROOFRIDGELINE670.50HIGHEST ROOFRIDGELINEROOF LINEABOVE613.75 B.W.619.75 T.W.634.75AVERAGEPRECONSTRUCTIONELEVATION OF THEFRONT SETBACK LINE@ ADJACENT@ ADJACENT@ ADJACENT652. F.G.5'-0" TALL FENCEAND SELF-LATCHINGGATE650.00 B.W.652.00 T.W.655.00 B.W.655.50 T.W.643.00 B.W.652.00 T.W.634.00 B.W.642.00 T.W.626.00 B.W.631.75 T.W.619.00 B.W.622.75 T.W.615.00 B.W.617.50 T.W.610.00 B.W.612.50 T.W.605.00 B.W.607.75 T.W.600.00 B.W.603.75 T.W.PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ILLUMINATION24" MAXIMUN HEIGHT - SHIELDEDLOW VOLTAGE LANDSCAPING TO BESUBMITTED AT A LATER DATE6" CURB TYP.T.O.R.648.146" CURBTYP.T.O.R.636.05T.O.W.660.208.50'MAX. HT.9.0'MAX. HT.T.O.R.658.0024.0'MAX. HT.18'-2"
22'-7"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY10'-0"
FYSB
20'-0"8'-0"
HORSE TRA
I
L
F.G.652.08F.G.652.085'-0" TALL MIN.BLOCK WALLDNF.S.633.90625.00 B.W.634.15 T.W.619.0 B.W.627.15 T.W.SLOPING WALL
605.25 B.W.612.75 T.W.606.25 B.W.612.75 T.W.T.O.R.644.4019.25'MAX. HT.12'-0"16'-6"47'-8"8'-0"HORSE TRAILOUTLINE OF CAR LIFTTO LOWER GARAGE12'-11"F.G.652.25DN5'-0" TALLSELF-LATCHINGGATE638.00 B.W.657.25 T.W.652.25 B.W.657.25 T.W.FG. ELV.633.90640.90 B.W.657.25 T.W.F.G.652.256" CURB TYP.T.O.R.644.40LANDSCAPELANDSCAPELANDSCAPE26'-0"EGRESSGATE20'-0"RELOCATEWATER METERD= 44°36'02"R= 195.06' L= 151.84'(630)(640)(630)(640)XXXXXXXXXXXXX. CHAIN-LINK FENCEDN5'-0"DNLANDSCAPING763 (FRONT YARD SETBACK) x 50% =381.50 REQUIRED507 PROVIDED = 132 % = OKLANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"NORTHDNTRASH AREALIGHT WELLDNSITE PLAN
A-1.0ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:PROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE + INTERIOR DESIGNENVIROTECHNOJOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:BFLdMFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
15000 AVIATION BLVD. 5TH FLOOR
LAWNDALE, CA 90267
DAVID DE LANGIS
PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 12/14/20
Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the project for which they were prepared, and not for the construction of any other projects. Any use or reproduction of these drawings in whole or part by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited except with specific written consent of EnviroTechno Architecture.
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
De LANGIS RESIDENCE 116 SOUTH CATALINA AVE. SUITE 102REDONDO BEACH, CA. 90277voice: 310.379.9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comD-9
N 31°51'00" EN 30°53'13" EN 58°05'00" WN 11°55'58" E50.00'106.01'182.76'207.69'D= 44°36'02"R= 195.06' L= 151.84'(650)SET 2" I.P. (FLUSH)(594.10) GRD. @ P/LCOR.ADJACENT RESIDENCEF.F.=(623.98) @ DOOR(554.94) GRD. @ P/LCOR.SET 2" I.P. (FLUSH)(
6
5
0
)(643.1)± GRD.@ P/L COR.(639.6)± GRD.@ P/L COR.(650)(655)(560)(570)(580)(580)(590)(589.75) GRD. @ ANGLEPNT. OF P/LSET 2" I.P. (FLUSH)(590)(600)(610)(620)(630)(640)(590)(600)(610)(620)(630)(640)± FLOW LINE OF CREEKXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXPALOSVERDESDRIVEEASTEX. CHAIN-LINK FENCEEX. CHAIN-LINK FENCE30.62'29.37'GASMETERWATERMETERSET N&TAG, R.C.E.20327, 29.37' O/S N'LY ON P/L PROD.,(650.39) ELEV. @TAG.(650.32)TOP A.C. BERM(650.02)F.L.(657.35)F.L.(6
5
7
.
6
3
)
T
O
P
A
.
C
.
B
E
R
M
(656.28)
F.L.
(656.73)
TOP A.C. BERM
(657.08) ELEV. @N'LY ON P/L PROD.,20327, 30.62' O/S SET N&TAG, R.C.E.TAG.TOP A.C. BERM(654.39)(653.98)F.L.(654.36)E.P.E.P.(652.35)(652.19)TOP A.C. BERM(651.91)F.L.(650.42)E.P.GUARD RAIL @ F.L. OF BERMCLCLCLCLCLA.C.PAVEMENTWALKTREE14"ØCONC W/JACUZZIEX. CHAIN-LINK FENCETHREE RAIL WOOD FENCETHREE RAIL WOOD FENCEEX. CHAUIN-LINK FENCE45'(621.54)F.S.(620.1)F.G.EX. 8" C.B.R.W.XXPWR
(600)(610)(620)(630)(640)(650)(655)(590)(610)(600)(590)(580)(570)(620)(630
)
(640
)
(650
)HAZARD ZONEOPEN SPACECA-8.1BA-8.0CA-8.1BA-8.0DA-8.1DA-8.1AA-8.0AA-8.0FG. ELV.626.90DECK BELOWDECKBELOWPOOLVERANDAEA-8.2EA-8.2F.F. ELV.654.60UPPER PATIOPOOL PATIOWATER COLLECTIONSITE PLANSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"NORTHF.F. ELV.640.90F.F. ELV.640.90DRIVEWAYF.F. ELV.640.90POOL PATIODNLIGHT WELLSPA3 REQUIREDGUEST PARKINGDNDNDRIVEWAY FIRE TRUCK ACCESSDNOUTLINE OFCOLUMN LOCATIONAT LOWER LEVELTYP.DRIVEWAYDNSLOPING
W
A
L
L
OUTLINE OF RET. WALLBELLOWSLOPING W
A
L
L
SLOPING
W
A
L
L
SLOPING WALL SLOPING WALL
PLANTER PLANTER
A-7.14A-7.13A-7.026'-0" HT. TRASHENCLOSURETRASH AREAINFINITY POOL EDGEA-7.01A-7.01F.S.656.25'F.S.655.86'2 %
SLO
P
E
F.S.656.702 %
SLOPEE.P.654.05'620.75 B.W.621.00 T.W.604.25 B.W.612.75 T.W.F.S.654.50T.O.R.644.40T.O.R.644.40T.O.R.637.40F.S.654.55T.O.R.637.402 %
SLOPE
2 %SLOPE5 %
SLO
P
E F.G.604.50F.S.633.90F.S.626.90B.S.644.64F.S.656.612 %SLOPE2 %SLOPE2 %SLOPET.O.R.615.00T.S.644.52B.S.632.55T.S.632.43B.S.613.97T.S.613.85B.S.605.03B.S.626.13T.S.625.94T.O.W.656.50650.00 B.W.655.60 T.W.645.00 B.W.655.60 T.W.641.50 B.W.655.60 T.W.T.O.R.637.40634.00 B.W.634.15 T.W.622.50 B.W.627.15 T.W.T.O.R.630.40F.S.626.75F.S.614.75F.S.611.50T.O.R.618.25T.O.R.629.63T.O.R.617.47T.O.R.608.53T.O.W.660.20T.O.R.660.11T.O.W.656.505'-0" TALL FENCEAND SELF-LATCHINGGATE670.50HIGHEST ROOFRIDGELINE626.00 F.G.LOWEST POINT670.50HIGHEST ROOFRIDGELINE670.50HIGHEST ROOFRIDGELINEROOF LINEABOVE613.75 B.W.619.75 T.W.634.75AVERAGEPRECONSTRUCTIONELEVATION OF THEFRONT SETBACK LINE@ ADJACENT@ ADJACENT@ ADJACENT652. F.G.5'-0" TALL FENCEAND SELF-LATCHINGGATE650.00 B.W.652.00 T.W.655.00 B.W.655.50 T.W.643.00 B.W.652.00 T.W.634.00 B.W.642.00 T.W.626.00 B.W.631.75 T.W.619.00 B.W.622.75 T.W.615.00 B.W.617.50 T.W.610.00 B.W.612.50 T.W.605.00 B.W.607.75 T.W.600.00 B.W.603.75 T.W.PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ILLUMINATION24" MAXIMUN HEIGHT - SHIELDEDLOW VOLTAGE LANDSCAPING TO BESUBMITTED AT A LATER DATE6" CURB TYP.T.O.R.648.146" CURBTYP.T.O.R.636.05T.O.W.660.208.50'MAX. HT.9.0'MAX. HT.T.O.R.658.0024.0'MAX. HT.DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY8'-0"
HORSE TRA
I
L
F.G.652.08F.G.652.085'-0" TALL MIN.BLOCK WALLDNF.S.633.90625.00 B.W.634.15 T.W.619.0 B.W.627.15 T.W.SLOPING WALL
605.25 B.W.612.75 T.W.606.25 B.W.612.75 T.W.T.O.R.644.4019.25'MAX. HT.8'-0"HORSE TRAILOUTLINE OF CAR LIFTTO LOWER GARAGEF.G.652.25DN5'-0" TALLSELF-LATCHINGGATE638.00 B.W.657.25 T.W.652.25 B.W.657.25 T.W.FG. ELV.633.90640.90 B.W.657.25 T.W.F.G.652.256" CURB TYP.T.O.R.644.40LANDSCAPELANDSCAPELANDSCAPEEGRESSGATERELOCATEWATER METEROUTLINE OFPREVIOUS DESIGNREFER SAFETY SHOULDER CONFIGURATIONNEW CALTRANS - TYPRE E , CASE F MOUNTABLE CURB DETAILSL=151.84'R=195.06'Δ=44°36'02"Exist. Crib WallEDGE OF ROADWAYEDGE OF ROADWAYVERDESPALOSDRIVEEAST
4.76%
A
V
G.
S
L
O
P
E NEW CALTRANSTYPE E, CASE FMOUNTABLE CURBSEE DETAILS BELOWEXIST. TYPE A CURBTO REMAINCURB TRANSITION TYP.CURB TRANSITION TYP.EXIST. TYPE A CURBTO REMAINCONTOUR AND RECOMPACT EXIST.PERVIOUS SHOULDER BALLAST (TYP)EDGE OF ROADWAYSAFETY SHOULDER CONFIGURATIONSCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"NORTHDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNSITE PLAN
A-1.2ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:PROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE + INTERIOR DESIGNENVIROTECHNOJOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:BFLdMFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
15000 AVIATION BLVD. 5TH FLOOR
LAWNDALE, CA 90267
DAVID DE LANGIS
PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 12/14/20
Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the project for which they were prepared, and not for the construction of any other projects. Any use or reproduction of these drawings in whole or part by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited except with specific written consent of EnviroTechno Architecture.
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
De LANGIS RESIDENCE 116 SOUTH CATALINA AVE. SUITE 102REDONDO BEACH, CA. 90277voice: 310.379.9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comD-10
24'-8"29'-8"106'-0"1'-9"21'-8"
54'-4"F.F. ELV.626.75CRAWL SPACEFG. ELV.633.87FG. ELV.626.0030'-2"F.F. ELV.627.00POOLWATER COLLECTIONPOOL PATIOCRAWL SPACECOVER PATIONORTH LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"5'-0"3'-0"15'-0"29'-5"19'-5"45'-4"T.O.W.626.75T.O.W.619.75T.O.W.612.75T.O.W.626.75T.O.W.619.75T.O.W.612.75T.O.W.626.75T.O.W.619.75T.O.W.612.75T.O.W.619.75T.O.W.612.75B.O.W.613.75B.O.W.620.75B.O.W.606.50B.O.W.613.75B.O.W.620.75B.O.W.606.25B.O.W.613.75B.O.W.620.75B.O.W.605.25B.O.W.613.75B.O.W.620.75B.O.W.604.25POOL PATIO4'-9"1'-6"17'-8"DNDNDNCA-8.1BA-8.0CA-8.1BA-8.0DA-8.1DA-8.1AA-8.0AA-8.0EA-8.2EA-8.2A-7.01A-7.14A-7.13A-7.023'-0"T.O.R.630.40T.O.R.630.40T.O.R.630.40ELEV.UP10'-0"POOLEQUIPMENTOPEN TOABOVEW.I.C.12'-6" x 5'-9"MASTER BEDROOM21'-3" x 13'-0"MASTER BATH19'-10" x 9'-6"MASTER BEDROOM24'-3" x 13'-0"MASTER BATH15'-0" x 10'-0"W.I.C.7'-6" x 10'-0"DINING ROOM15'-6" x 24'-0"FAMILY ROOM19'-6" x 24'-0"BATH7'-8" x 7'-0"W.I.C.3'-9" x 5'-0"BEDROOM13'-6" x 12'-6"8'-10"25'-10"13'-3"22'-7"111'-2"20'-8"24'-8"
54'-4"LOWER 3 CAR GARAGEFG. ELV.633.87F.F. ELV.641.00MECHANICAL6'-4" x 12'-0"DWDWDNUP35'-7"KITCHEN19'-6" x 13'-0"ELEV.NORTH MIDDLE LEVEL FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"9'-0"5'-2"18'-4"24'-0"12'-0"54'-4"14'-0"21'-3"5'-0"9'-4"7'-8"13'-4"9'-2"29'-8"109'-5"COVERED DECKFAUWHFAUWHCOVERED DECKCOVERED DECKREF.REF.OVENOPEN TOABOVEOPEN TOABOVEF.F. ELV.640.90LIGHT WELL11'-0"F.F. ELV.641.00F.F. ELV.641.00CA-8.1BA-8.0CA-8.1BA-8.0DA-8.1DA-8.1AA-8.0AA-8.0EA-8.2EA-8.2A-7.01A-7.14A-7.13A-7.0228'-2"20'-0"541 sq.ft.266 sq.ft.PANTRYDNUP10'-0"A-3.0LOWER & MIDDLE
LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:PROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE + INTERIOR DESIGNENVIROTECHNOJOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:BFLdMFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
15000 AVIATION BLVD. 5TH FLOOR
LAWNDALE, CA 90267
DAVID DE LANGIS
PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 12/14/20
Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the project for which they were prepared, and not for the construction of any other projects. Any use or reproduction of these drawings in whole or part by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited except with specific written consent of EnviroTechno Architecture.
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
De LANGIS RESIDENCE 116 SOUTH CATALINA AVE. SUITE 102REDONDO BEACH, CA. 90277voice: 310.379.9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comD-11
A---3'-0"29'-8"106'-0"1'-9"20'-8"24'-8"
48'-4"F.S.656.50UPPER 3 CAR GARAGEOFFICE13'-0" x 16'-6"ENTRY10'-6" x 11'-3"DN24'-1"BATH5'-6" x 9'-0"F.F. ELV.654.50OPEN3'-0"
NORTH ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"DNOPENOPENMECH.RAMPLOWERFLAT ROOFLOWERFLAT ROOFLOWERFLAT ROOFTop of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.0018'-4"24'-0"12'-0"58'-4"
7'-4"10'-8"10'-4"14'-0"68'-1"43'-1"111'-2"20'-4"9'-10"14'-2"5'-6"30'-4"1'-9"9'-10"5'-0"12'-4"F.S.654.30LIGHT WELLCA-8.1BA-8.0CA-8.1BA-8.0DA-8.1DA-8.1AA-8.0AA-8.0EA-8.2EA-8.2A-7.01A-7.14A-7.13A-7.02TRASH AREA29'-0"20'-0"OPEN DECK104 sq.ft.ELEV.11'-0"9'-4"LOWERFLAT ROOF10'-0"
10'-
0
"DECKBELOWLOWERFLAT ROOFNORTH ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"OPENOPENLOWERFLAT ROOFLOWERFLAT ROOFUPPERFLAT ROOFUPPERFLAT ROOFUPPERFLAT ROOFSLOPE2:12SLOPE2:12SLOPE2:12SLOPE2:12CURVROOFCURVROOFDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSCA-8.1BA-8.0CA-8.1BA-8.0DA-8.1DA-8.1AA-8.0AA-8.0EA-8.2EA-8.2A-7.01A-7.14A-7.13A-7.02Top of Roof670.50Top of Roof670.50Top of Roof670.50Top of parapet664.50Top of parapet664.50Top of parapet666.00Top of parapet666.00Top of parapet666.00Top of parapet664.50Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of Chimney656.00Top of Chimney656.00Top of parapet664.50Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of Roof668.32Top of Roof668.32Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet656.00Top of parapet666.00Top of parapet666.00Top of parapet666.00Top of parapet664.50Top of parapet666.00Top of Roof669.00Top of Roof669.00Top of Roof669.00Top of Roof669.00Top of Roof670.50Top of Roof666.50Top of Roof666.50Top of Roof668.32Top of Roof668.32Top of parapet664.50Top of parapet664.50Top of parapet656.00LOWERFLAT ROOF10'-0"A-3.1ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR
PLAN & ROOF PLAN ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:PROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE + INTERIOR DESIGNENVIROTECHNOJOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:BFLdMFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
15000 AVIATION BLVD. 5TH FLOOR
LAWNDALE, CA 90267
DAVID DE LANGIS
PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 12/14/20
Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the project for which they were prepared, and not for the construction of any other projects. Any use or reproduction of these drawings in whole or part by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited except with specific written consent of EnviroTechno Architecture.
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
De LANGIS RESIDENCE 116 SOUTH CATALINA AVE. SUITE 102REDONDO BEACH, CA. 90277voice: 310.379.9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comD-12
NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1F.F. ELV.654.508'-0"Top of parapet666.00F.F. ELV.654.50F.F. ELV. @ Garage Door656.50Top of Roof670.50Top of parapet664.50212212Top of Roof670.50Top of Roof670.50LP5'-0" REQ'DSIDE YARDSETBACKE.G.640.00LP5'-0" REQ'DSIDE YARDSETBACKSETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE35.75' HEIGHT OF PROPOSEDSTRUCTURE, AS MEASUREDFROM THE AVERAGE FRONTSETBACK LINE TO THEHIGHEST RIDGE LINE
CLASS "A" METAL MBCI "BATTENLOK HS"MECHANICALLY SEAMED ROOFSYSTEM, STANDARD COLORSIGNATURE 300 "TUNDRA" SR .46 SRI 53OVER (2) LAYERS OF 30 POUND FELT.6" WIDE IPE WOOD SIDING STAIN GRADE -WITH1/8" RECESSED GROOVE BETWEEN ANDMITERED CORNERS - STAIN COLOR TO FOLLOWMETAL FASCIAMETAL FASCIA634.75AVERAGEPRECONSTRUCTIONELEVATION OF THEFRONT SETBACK LINET.O.W.660.20F.S.644.13T.O.R.647.63T.O.W.642.00E.G.634.003'-0"MIN.9'-0" MAX.
4'-3" MAX.
24'-0" MAX.
5'-0"MIN.T.O.W.657.25F.G.652.08Top of Roof656.007/8" SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOCOLOR TO BE SELECTED BYARCHITECT656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHT30'-0"F.F. ELV.641.00EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2OPENSETBACK LINE
EDGE OF PAVEMENTEXISTING GRADELINE @ PLLP10'-0" REQ'DFRONT YARDSETBACK670.50HIGHEST ROOFRIDGELINE626.00 F.G.LOWEST POINT43.75 HEIGHT OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE, AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWESTFINISH SURFACE COVERED BY STRUCTURE TO THE NEW HIGHEST RIDGE LINE
T.O.R.630.40CLASS "A" METAL MBCI "BATTENLOK HS"MECHANICALLY SEAMED ROOFSYSTEM, STANDARD COLORSIGNATURE 300 "TUNDRA" SR .46 SRI 53OVER (2) LAYERS OF 30 POUND FELT.6" WIDE IPE WOOD SIDING STAIN GRADE -WITH1/8" RECESSED GROOVE BETWEEN ANDMITERED CORNERS - STAIN COLOR TO FOLLOW7/8" SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOCOLOR TO BE SELECTED BYARCHITECTSTAINLESS STEEL RAILING, WITHTEMPERED SFETY GLAZINGMETAL FASCIA7/8" SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOCOLOR TO BE SELECTED BYARCHITECT7/8" SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOCOLOR TO BE SELECTED BYARCHITECT7/8" SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOCOLOR TO BE SELECTED BYARCHITECTT.O.R.644.40F.S.633.90F.S.626.90F.S.614.75F.S.611.50T.O.R.615.00T.O.R.630.40T.O.R.637.4019.25' MAX.
R.W. HT.5'-0" TALL MIN.
BLOCK WALLT.O.W.657.25B.W.638.00B.W.633.90A-7.0EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:PROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE + INTERIOR DESIGNENVIROTECHNOJOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:BFLdMFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
15000 AVIATION BLVD. 5TH FLOOR
LAWNDALE, CA 90267
DAVID DE LANGIS
PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 12/14/20
Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the project for which they were prepared, and not for the construction of any other projects. Any use or reproduction of these drawings in whole or part by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited except with specific written consent of EnviroTechno Architecture.
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
De LANGIS RESIDENCE 116 SOUTH CATALINA AVE. SUITE 102REDONDO BEACH, CA. 90277voice: 310.379.9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comD-13
LPSOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3F.F. ELV.654.50F.F. ELV.641.008'-0"12'-0"12'-9"OPENTop of parapet664.50212Top of Roof670.50Top of Roof670.50Top of parapet666.00LPEXISTINGGRADE LINECRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACE5'-0" REQ'DSIDE YARDSETBACK5'-0" REQ'DSIDE YARDSETBACKSETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
Top of Roof670.50T.O.R.630.40T.O.R.637.40T.O.R.637.40T.O.R.644.40CLASS "A" METAL MBCI "BATTENLOK HS"MECHANICALLY SEAMED ROOFSYSTEM, STANDARD COLORSIGNATURE 300 "TUNDRA" SR .46 SRI 53OVER (2) LAYERS OF 30 POUND FELT.7/8" SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOCOLOR TO BE SELECTED BYARCHITECT7/8" SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOCOLOR TO BE SELECTED BYARCHITECTCLASS "A" METAL MBCI "BATTENLOK HS"MECHANICALLY SEAMED ROOFSYSTEM, STANDARD COLORSIGNATURE 300 "TUNDRA" SR .46 SRI 53OVER (2) LAYERS OF 30 POUND FELT.6" WIDE IPE WOOD SIDING STAIN GRADE -WITH1/8" RECESSED GROOVE BETWEEN ANDMITERED CORNERS - STAIN COLOR TO FOLLOWSTAINLESS STEEL RAILING, WITHTEMPERED SFETY GLAZINGT.O.R.630.40T.O.R.630.40EDGE OF PAVEMENT
WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4SETBACK LINE
656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHTEXISTING GRADELINE @ PLLPOUTLINE OFRAILING12'-0"12'-9"F.F. ELV.654.50F.F. ELV.641.00CRAWL SPACE30'-0"10'-0" REQ'DFRONT YARDSETBACK626.00 F.G.LOWEST POINT43.75 HEIGHT OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE, AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST
FINISH SURFACE COVERED BY STRUCTURE TO THE NEW HIGHEST RIDGE LINE 670.50HIGHEST ROOFRIDGELINE9'-0" MAX.
R.W. HT.6" WIDE IPE WOOD SIDING STAIN GRADE -WITH1/8" RECESSED GROOVE BETWEEN ANDMITERED CORNERS - STAIN COLOR TO FOLLOW6" WIDE IPE WOOD SIDING STAIN GRADE -WITH1/8" RECESSED GROOVE BETWEEN ANDMITERED CORNERS - STAIN COLOR TO FOLLOWCLASS "A" METAL MBCI "BATTENLOK HS"MECHANICALLY SEAMED ROOFSYSTEM, STANDARD COLORSIGNATURE 300 "TUNDRA" SR .46 SRI 53OVER (2) LAYERS OF 30 POUND FELT.7/8" SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOCOLOR TO BE SELECTED BYARCHITECT7/8" SMOOTH FINISH STUCCOCOLOR TO BE SELECTED BYARCHITECTF.S.605.03T.O.W.660.20T.O.R.608.53F.S.613.97T.O.R.617.47F.S.626.13T.O.R.629.63F.S.632.55T.O.R.636.05F.S.644.64T.O.R.648.14T.O.W.656.50T.O.W.652.00T.O.W.655.50F.S.656.61A-7.1EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:PROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE + INTERIOR DESIGNENVIROTECHNOJOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:BFLdMFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
15000 AVIATION BLVD. 5TH FLOOR
LAWNDALE, CA 90267
DAVID DE LANGIS
PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 12/14/20
Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the project for which they were prepared, and not for the construction of any other projects. Any use or reproduction of these drawings in whole or part by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited except with specific written consent of EnviroTechno Architecture.
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
De LANGIS RESIDENCE 116 SOUTH CATALINA AVE. SUITE 102REDONDO BEACH, CA. 90277voice: 310.379.9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comD-14
656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHTF.S.655.85'PLF.S.656.22'F.S.656.70EDGE OF PAVEMENT2 %SLOPE2 %SLOPEMASTER BEDROOMMASTER BATH12'-0"
30'-0"F.F. ELV.641.00LOWER3 CAR GARAGE3 CAR GARAGECRAWL SPACE14'-3"COLUMNCOLUMN6'-0"
SETBACK LINETop of parapet666.005.3 %SLOPEF.G.638.83'F.G.629.00'F.G.620.00'F.S.626.10'T.W.626.75'T.W.619.75'SECTIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A(E) EL.650'(E) EL.645'(E) EL.635'(E) EL.630'(E) EL.620'(E) EL.615'(E) EL.605'(E) EL.600'(E) EL.595'(E) EL.590'(E) EL.585'(E) EL.625'6'-0"6'-3"T.W.612.75'10'-0"18'-10"CRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACECRAWLSPACECRAWLSPACECAISSON(E) EL.640'43% AVERAGEEXISTING SLOPEFILL1'-0"1'-0"14'-6" MAX. FILL
CONCRETEDRIVEWAYE.G.654.35'8'-0"656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHT30'-0"
12'-0"12'-9"F.F. ELV.626.75F.F. ELV.641.00MASTER BEDROOMW.I.C.BEDROOM6'-0"F.F. ELV.654.50DECKENTRYPORCHHALLTop of Roof670.5013'-8"
(FOR VARIATION)F.S.654.50'F.S.654.43F.S.654.32F.G.635.00F.S.626.10T.W.626.75'SECTIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"B(E) EL.600'(E) EL.595'(E) EL.615'(E) EL.620'(E) EL.640'(E) EL.645'(E) EL.650'(E) EL.605'(E) EL.590'COLUMNCUT(E) EL.625'T.W.619.75'T.W.612.75'EDGE OF PAVEMENTPLSETBACK
LINEF.G.620.006'-0"6'-6"10'-0"CRAWL SPACECRAWLSPACECRAWLSPACECAISSON6'-0"
MAX. CUT
OPEN43% AVERAGEEXISTING SLOPEFILL1'-0"14'-6" MAX. FILL
CONCRETEDRIVEWAY1'-5"A-8.0BUILDING SECTIONS ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:PROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE + INTERIOR DESIGNENVIROTECHNOJOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:BFLdMFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
15000 AVIATION BLVD. 5TH FLOOR
LAWNDALE, CA 90267
DAVID DE LANGIS
PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 12/14/20
Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the project for which they were prepared, and not for the construction of any other projects. Any use or reproduction of these drawings in whole or part by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited except with specific written consent of EnviroTechno Architecture.
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
De LANGIS RESIDENCE 116 SOUTH CATALINA AVE. SUITE 102REDONDO BEACH, CA. 90277voice: 310.379.9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comD-15
656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHT3'-0"12'-0"
12'-9"
30'-0"F.F. ELV.626.75F.F. ELV.641.00OPENCOLUMNCUT6'-0"KITCHENFAMILY ROOMT.W.626.75'F.S.626.10F.S.626.00'F.G.623.34'SECTIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C(E) EL.595'(E) EL.600'(E) EL.625'(E) EL.590'(E) EL.605'(E) EL.615'(E) EL.620'(E) EL.652.35'(E) EL.640'(E) EL.645'(E) EL.650'2 %SLOPEPLSETBACK LINE
EDGE OF PAVEMENTT.W.619.75'T.W.612.75'7'-5"6'-0"10'-0"CRAWL SPACECRAWLSPACECAISSON6'-0"
MAX. CUT
43% AVERAGEEXISTING SLOPEFILL17'-6" MAX. FILL
CONCRETEDRIVEWAY12"656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHT13'-0"
30'-0"F.S.633.90'F.S.626.90'FILLFILLPLSETBACK LINEF.G.623.34'SECTIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"D(E) EL.650'(E) EL.635'(E) EL.645'(E) EL.630'(E) EL.620'(E) EL.625'(E) EL.615'(E) EL.605'(E) EL.595'(E) EL.600'(E) EL.590'FILLPOOLT.W.619.75'T.W.612.75'T.W.621.002 %SLOPECAISSON(E) EL.640'CONCRETEDRIVEWAYEDGE OF PAVEMENT
6'-0"8'-0"6'-0"
9'-0"
MAX. FILL9'-0"
MAX. FILL
43% AVERAGEEXISTING SLOPEFILLEXISTINGGUARDRAIL5'-11"10'-0"A-8.1BUILDING SECTIONS ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:PROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE + INTERIOR DESIGNENVIROTECHNOJOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:BFLdMFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
15000 AVIATION BLVD. 5TH FLOOR
LAWNDALE, CA 90267
DAVID DE LANGIS
PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 12/14/20
Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the project for which they were prepared, and not for the construction of any other projects. Any use or reproduction of these drawings in whole or part by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited except with specific written consent of EnviroTechno Architecture.
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
De LANGIS RESIDENCE 116 SOUTH CATALINA AVE. SUITE 102REDONDO BEACH, CA. 90277voice: 310.379.9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comD-16
656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHT12'-0"12'-9"8'-0"
13'-8"
(FOR
VARIATION)F.F. ELV.626.75F.F. ELV.641.00F.F. ELV.655.5012'-9"13'-0"LOWER3 CAR GARAGE3 CAR GARAGEHALLOFFICEENTRYMASTER BATHW.I.C.DINING ROOMFAMILY ROOM ROOMCOVER DECK656. 00'MAXIMUM HEIGHTHALLCOLUMNTop of Roof670.50Top of Roof670.50Top of Roof670.50Top of parapet666.00SECTIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"EPLPLF.S.633.90'CRAWL SPACECRAWL SPACET.O.R.635.55T.O.W.631.75E.G.626.003'-0"MIN.F.S.632.13A-8.2BUILDING SECTIONS ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:PROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE + INTERIOR DESIGNENVIROTECHNOJOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:BFLdMFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
15000 AVIATION BLVD. 5TH FLOOR
LAWNDALE, CA 90267
DAVID DE LANGIS
PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 12/14/20
Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the project for which they were prepared, and not for the construction of any other projects. Any use or reproduction of these drawings in whole or part by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited except with specific written consent of EnviroTechno Architecture.
28160 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
De LANGIS RESIDENCE 116 SOUTH CATALINA AVE. SUITE 102REDONDO BEACH, CA. 90277voice: 310.379.9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comD-17
1
Jaehee Yoon
From:jeanlongacre@aol.com
Sent:Friday, July 16, 2021 11:57 AM
To:Jaehee Yoon
Subject:28160 Palos Verdes Drive East
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Jaehee,
I have previously written several letters regarding this project. Will the letters I have submitted to the Traffic Committee,
Planning Commission and Ara be included in the City Council packet or do I need to resubmit them in order to be included
in the Staff report?
Thank you.
Jean Longacre
6 Martingale Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-0105
E-1
1
Jaehee Yoon
From:Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, July 25, 2021 9:40 AM
To:Jaehee Yoon
Subject:Re: 28160 PVDE_CC Appeal_Public Notice
Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Thank you Jaehee. I will 'attend' the CC meeting to discuss the appeal. I'm wondering,
though, why the deadline for written comments is 5 days earlier than the staff report of
August 10? Nonetheless, I'll comply with deadline.
"May the Trails be with you..." Madeline
On Thursday, July 8, 2021, 10:28:08 AM PDT, Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon,
As an interested party to the proposed project at 28160 PVDE, please find attached Public Notice for your review.
Should you have any questions, please contact me.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jaehee Yoon
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
E-2
1
Jaehee Yoon
From:Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, August 2, 2021 10:20 AM
To:CC; Jaehee Yoon
Cc:Ara Mihranian; PC
Subject:28160 PVDE_CC Appeal - City Council Meeting on Tuesday August 17, 2021
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, City Staff
As you can see on the first page of the Staff Report, there were numerous meetings and
continuances granted since May 2018 when the development application was first
submitted involving the Traffic Safety Committee, Public Works Department, a Wildhan
Traffic Survey, public input and the Planning Commission, who granted more than one
continuance to the developer/homeowner for the purpose of revising the design to
better comply with City building codes.
Each time the design revisions were re-submitted to the PC, the project still required
several variances and encroachment of Public Right Of Way of 26'-27' feet to allow for
the development of a landing connecting two driveways for homeowner's exclusive use.
Where is the public benefit?
I don't know of any residence on PV Drive East that has been gifted 26'-27' feet of
PROW for their exclusive use, yet, all of us cross the PROW to get to our residences.
Does that warrant gifting PROW to each resident?
I have always wondered why this legal lot was not developed back in the 1950's, 1960's,
when development was occurring up and down Palos Verdes Drive East, when building
codes and county codes were more relaxed! A legal lot doesn't make a buildable lot and
that could be the only conclusion as to why this lot remained vacant for over 70 years!
In my previous letters opposing this development I speak about the 26'-27' feet of
PROW give away, canyon views lost, Neighborhood INcompatibility, the dubious safety
of ingress/egress, a reminder to the homeowner of a 'right turn only' sign, and the
many variances needed that undermine the City's code restrictions of building on
extreme slopes, height of walls, fences, building heights, etc.
To grant this appeal would do exactly that, undermine the City's building codes and
Neighborhood Compatibility. Please support the Planning Commission's Resolution to
deny without prejudice this project and put into place a plan to purchase this property so
that there is never another attempt at building on this 'unbuildable' extreme slope lot.
E-3
2
Thank you.
Madeline Ryan
28328 Palos Verdes Drive East
RPV
"May the Trails be with you..." Madeline
E-4
1
Jaehee Yoon
From:jeanlongacre@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday, August 4, 2021 9:05 PM
To:Jaehee Yoon
Subject:28160 Palos Verdes Drive East on August 17, 2021 Agenda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Jaehee and City Council,,
In the staff report, please include the Willdan report. This report states that ingress/egress to this property is not safe. I
did not feel it was adequately referenced in the report to the Planning Commission and was not referenced as one of
the reasons the project was denied by the Planning Commission. We should be trying to make PVDE safer, not creating
new hazards.
Also, I do not agree with giving away 27 feet of the 30 foot PROW. It would be unfair to limit the ability of future Councils
to make decisions on PVDE and also set a bad precedent.
There are so many problems with this project. I respectfully request that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commissions denial of this project and just say NO.
Sincerely,
Jean Longacre
6 Martingale Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-0105
E-5
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
NUMBER: 42
DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: 08/18/09
SUBJECT: Form of Staff Recommendations to the City Council
POLICY:
It shall be the policy of the City Council that in preparing staff reports to the City
Council, Staff will clearly present its independent and professional
recommendation to the City Council under the customary “Recommendation”
section of the staff report, in addition to presenting the recommendation or
decision of the Planning Commission or other advisory board or committee on
the matter in question.
BACKGROUND:
When land use planning items that involve Planning Commission review are
presented to the City Council, it has been Staff’s practice to recommend
upholding the Planning Commission’s decision or recommendation to the
Council--even in situations where Staff’s best professional judgment would
dictate otherwise.
Staff’s practice of deference to the Planning Commission has deprived the City
Council and the public of the professional opinion of City Staff and has caused
some confusion among the public and some Council Members as to what Staff’s
professional advice is. As a result, on July 21, 2009, the City Council discussed
this matter and agreed to adopt a policy that Staff will clearly provide its best
judgment and recommendation to the City Council, even in instances where its
recommendation would be to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision. The
Planning Commission’s decision and its rationale for the decision would continue
to be explained in detail in the staff report. Furthermore, the Chair or other
member of the Planning Commission or advisory board still should attend the
Council meeting and describe the Planning Commission’s deliberations.
The purpose of setting this policy is to have a consistent policy that applies
across the board that the Council always wants to have Staff’s best advice stated
clearly in all staff reports, even if the Council may ask for other alternatives, and
even if the Council chooses not to follow the Staff’s advice from time to time.
Therefore, this policy is applicable to the recommendations or decisions of any
City advisory board or committee and is not limited to matters before the City
Council that have been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
F-1