Loading...
CC SR 20210907 01 - 30504 PVDW Appeal PUBLIC HEARING Date: September 7, 2021 Subject: Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit for the property located at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West (Case No. PLGR2019-0025). Recommendation: (1) Review the proposed project and merits of the appeal; (2) Review and, if acceptable, affirm Staff’s interpretation of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) relating to the construction or grading of new single -family residences on extreme slopes (i.e. 35% or greater) and the grading criteria set forth in §17.76.040(E)(9) of the RPVMC; and, (3) If the interpretation of the grading permit criteria is affirmed, remand the proposed project back to the Planning Commission, to serve in an advisory capacity, and provide direction on addressing any other concerns related to the proposed project for consideration by the City Council at a future public hearing. 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/Applicants: David Haas and Ann Marie Won; and Luis de Moraes Mayor Alegria invites the Appellants/Applicants to speak. (10 mins.) B. 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 Appellants/Applicants. (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. CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 8. Council Questions of Appellants/Applicants (factual and without bias): 9. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Alegria 10. 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. 11. 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: 09/07/2021 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing AGENDA TITLE: Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit for the property located at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West (Case No. PLGR2019-0025). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Review the proposed project and merits of the appeal; (2) Review and, if acceptable, affirm Staff’s interpretation of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) relating to the construction or grading of new single- family residences on extreme slopes (i.e. 35% or greater) and the grading criteria set forth in §17.76.040(E)(9) of the RPVMC; and, (3) If the interpretation of the grading permit criteria is affirmed, remand the proposed project back to the Planning Commission, to serve in an advisory capacity, and provide direction on addressing any other concerns related to the proposed project for consideration by the City Council at a future public hearing . 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 the 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 the 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2021-12 (page A-1) B. Appeal Letter (page B-1) C. Project Plans (page C-1) D. Public Comments (page D-1) E. City Council Policy No. 42 (page E-1) 1 CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Links to previous staff reports and actions taken by the Planning Commission 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 Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit for the property located at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West. The proposed project involves the construction of a new 4,350 ft² split-story residence and ancillary improvements on a vacant 13,350 ft2 up-sloping flag lot. The site and project descriptions are described in greater detail in the “Discussion” section below. A timely appeal (Attachment B) of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by the property owner (Appellant) requesting that the City Council consider overturning the Planning Commission’s denial of the requested project applications, thereby approving the proposed project. Based on the appeal by the Appellan t and findings of denial by the Planning Commission, Staff seeks, among other things, the City Council’s affirmation of the interpretation of the RPVMC as it relates to the construction or grading of new single- family residences on extreme slopes (i.e. 35% or greater) and deviations from the grading criteria set forth in §17.76.040(E)(9) of the RPVMC. De Novo Review Although the requested application for the proposed project was vetted, reviewed, and denied by the Planning Commission, tonight’s hearing on this matter is a “de novo” hearing, meaning that the project is now in the jurisdiction of the City Council and 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, 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 but 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 by Staff have been correctly made and all provisions of Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning) of the RPVMC 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 the RPVMC; or 2 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 the RPVMC have not been complied with but that, in either case, the application has merit and may possibly be modified and resubmitted to conform with the provisions of Title 16 and Title 17 of of the RPVMC; or 4. Deny the application, with prejudice, upon finding that all applicable findings cannot be made or all provisions of Title 16 and Title 17 of the RPVMC 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), deny the project (deny the appeal), or remand the project back to the Planning Commission. A discussion on Staff’s findings supporting the project and the Planning Commission’s finding for denial are presented in the “Discussion” section below. Based on the discussion found below, Staff is recommending that the City Council remand the project back to the Planning Commission to further review the merits of the project and to forward a recommendation for the City Council’s consideration a t a future public hearing. A timeline of the application process for this project immediately follows: 1. Application Submittal (October 3, 2019) The Applicant, on behalf of the property owner, submitted a Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit applications, requesting approval to construct a new residence and ancillary site improvements with associated grading at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West. 2. Planning Commission Meeting (March 9, 2021) A duly-noticed public hearing was held, at which time the application was continued to a date uncertain, to provide an opportunity for the Applicant and Staff to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission related to Neighborhoo d Compatibility, privacy, grading, drainage, potential wildlife habitat, and foliage analysis. • March 9, 2021 PC Staff Report • March 9, 2021 PC Minutes (see Page 3) 3. Planning Commission Meeting (June 22, 2021) A duly-noticed public hearing was held to consider the Applicant’s revised plans and additional information. Based on concerns specific to the proposed grading that will be conducted entirely on extreme slope, a motion to deny the application was passed on a 3-2 vote, with Commissioners Saadatnejadi and Santarosa dissenting, and directed Staff to bring back a resolution to that effect for adoption at the July 13, 2021, meeting. 3 • June 22, 2021 PC Staff Report • June 22, 2021 PC Minutes (see Page 2) 4. Planning Commission Meeting (July 13, 2021) The Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2021-12 (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. 5. Appeal Submittal (July 27, 2021) A timely appeal (Attachment B) 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 proposed project. 6. Issuance of Public Notice (August 12, 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 three comments in response to the public notice. DISCUSSION: The following discussion provides an overview of 1) site and project description; 2) summarized discussion of code considerations and analysis; 3) Planning Commission findings for denial; and 4) bases of appeal. 1) Site and Project Description The project site is a vacant 13,350 ft2 up- sloping lot, which includes a 2,893 ft2 access easement along the pole portion of the flag lot, with extreme slopes (i.e., 35% or greater) throughout the site averaging 49.6% that was created prior to City incorporation in 1967. The overall steepness of the lot is such that the flagpole portion of the lot ascends approximately 18 feet from the street of access (Palos Verdes Drive West) to the front property line and further ascends an additional 40 – 50 feet toward the rear property line. The southwest corner of the project site includes a 628 ft2 easement held by the adjacent property owner at 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West, 4 which is improved with a retaining wall and a portion of their driveway. The project site’s General Plan land use and Zoning designations are Residential 2-4 D.U./AC and Single- Family Residential (RS-4), respectively. In addition, the northern half of the site is subject to the Natural (OC-1) & Urban Appearance (OC-3) Overlay Control Districts. The proposed project includes the following improvements on a vacant lot: • Construction of a new 4,350 ft2 (3,821 ft2 residence and 529 ft2 attached garage) split- story residence • Construction of ancillary site improvements, including two air conditioning units, eight skylights, a new motor-court, a 678 ft2 roof deck with outdoor kitchen, a 210 ft2 balcony, a stairway along each side yard, a 6-foot tall wood fence along the front, rear and side property lines, a 5-foot tall retaining wall along the rear façade, terraced planters up to 8 feet 6 inches in height along the front of the residence, and landscaping strips (hedges) along the front and side yards • On-site grading consisting of 1,049 yd3 of associated grading (798 yd3 of cut and 251 yd3 of fill with 547 yd3 of export) to accommodate the proposed improvements The height of the proposed residence will be 4 feet as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 153.5 feet) to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 157.5 feet); and an overall height of 30 feet as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 127.5 feet) to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 157.5 feet). In response to the Neighborhood Compatibility, privacy, grading, drainage, potential wildlife habitat, and foliage analysis concerns raised during the March 9, 2021, Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant revised the plans by reducing the structure size, lot coverage, and grading quantity, complying with the upper-level setback, and increasing the side yard setback, among other things. Below is a table that summarizes critical components of project revisions presented at the June 22, 2021, Planning Commission meeting in comparison to the original plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 9, 2021: Table No. 1: Project Revision Comparison CRITERIA MARCH 9th PC REVIEWED PLAN JUNE 22nd REVISED PLAN Structure Size (garage included) 4,467 ft2 4,350 ft2 Side Setback (South) 5 feet 2 inches 7 feet 2 inches Upper-Level Setback Per RPVMC §17.02.040(B)(2) 6 feet 11 inches 8 feet 11 inches Lot Coverage 48.36% 47.76% 5 CRITERIA MARCH 9th PC REVIEWED PLAN JUNE 22nd REVISED PLAN Grading Quantity 1,057 yd3 1,049 yd3 It should be noted that the project went through several round s of revisions and additional reviews by Staff and consultants before and after Planning Commission hearings to address various concerns raised by neighboring property owners, which are summarized in the table below: Table No. 2: Project Concerns and Comments Project Concerns Project Revisions and/or Staff Response Neighborhood Compatibility as it related to structure size, bulk/mass, and architectural style • Width of the overall building footprint reduced by 22 inches, thereby reducing the overall size of the residence by 106 ft2 in area • A 332 ft2 attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) eliminated to further reduce structure size • A 22-inch-wide landscaping strip along the front and side yards incorporated to soften the potential bulk and mass • Architectural features and materials in both the façade treatment and roof design have incorporated elements found in the immediate neighborhood • The proposed balcony and roof deck are not new features in the immediate neighborhood and serve as the only functional private outdoor space, which may otherwise not be possible to be built at grade on the existing slope without substantial earth movement Privacy impacts due to balcony and roof deck • Elimination of a 27 ft2 balcony at the northeast corner of the residence • Incorporation of a 22-inch-wide landscaping strip along the front and side yards to minimize views into neighboring properties • North-facing railing on the roof deck was revised from glass to stucco to minimize views in the direction of the Via Cambron properties. It should be noted that the Applicant has been made aware of the public’s request to change all glass railings to stucco, which they wish to maintain as proposed. Grading criteria cannot be met All findings have been affirmatively made as outlined in Table No. 3 below 6 Project Concerns Project Revisions and/or Staff Response Slope stability, structural integrity, and liabilities • A geology report was reviewed and approved by the City’s geologist demonstrating that the project would not have an adverse impact to the site • Project will be reviewed during the Building and Safety plan check process to ensure that the project engineering conforms to all necessary code a nd requirements for a safe and sound structure • A slope analysis was submitted by the Applicant to identify the varying slope conditions on the buildable area of the project site Tree and vegetation removal which act as a barrier and privacy screening Based on the project plans, four trees in the front yard will be removed and the City’s foliage analysis requires trimming of one pine tree along the driveway to restore views from a neighboring property Accuracy of silhouette According to the silhouette certification form, which was signed by a licensed engineer, the project silhouette accurately depicts the proposed plans. It should be noted that four silhouette certification forms have been submitted thus far, in which three of the forms were to ensure that the adjusted silhouettes were properly constructed as well. Drainage and stormwater run-off • A hydrology study and conceptual drainage plan was submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department, which is typically required during the Building and Safety Division plan check process • Onsite drainage shown to be conveyed under the existing driveway will be routed to the proposed outlet structure as a Condition of Approval • The Applicant will be required to submit complete design of the drainage plan and a Low Impact Development (LID) plan for review and approval prior to Building Permit issuance Property value, noise, and purpose of development The RPVMC and required application findings for the project’s entitlements do not require an assessment of these matters in analyzing development projects Natural light and air Property line setbacks are intended to provide for adequate open space, and separation between properties, and the proposed project complies with the City’s required setbacks with most of the setbacks greater than required Property line encroachment To ensure compliance with the proposed setbacks, a Condition of Approval will be proposed to require a setback certification signed by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer 7 Project Concerns Project Revisions and/or Staff Response Building height The proposed project is allowed to be built up to 30 feet in height as a split-story residence on an up-sloping lot per §17.02.040(B)(1)(a) of the RPVMC Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) application review and privacy concerns related to the entrance If an ADU is proposed in the future within an existing space of the primary dwelling unit, as was included in the initial project application, the ADU application will be reviewed and approved at the staff level and privacy mitigation measures such as having the entrance face away from the nearest adjacent property will not be required Applicability of the Coastal Act The project site is outside of the Coastal Specific Plan boundaries and not subject to the Coastal Act Lot creation and applicable development standards The lot was created in 1967, and development standards for lots created prior to City incorporation are applied Light pollution and reflective materials • Exterior lighting restrictions will be imposed as a Condition of Approval so as to prevent direct illumination toward abutting properties and vehicles passing on the public right-of-way • Painted metal fascia is minimally used as an accent to provide articulation to the residence while the tempered glass will be limited to the balcony, roof deck, and entry-level deck railings There was no good faith effort from the property owners to discuss the proposed project in advance with neighboring properties While a Height Variation application requires submittal of the Early Neighborhood Consultation form so that the Applicant and/or property owners inform neighbors of the proposed project in advance, the requested project applications do not include an Early Neighborhood Consultation process requirement as this project does not require a Height Variation Permit, it is only recommended as part of the Neighborhood Compatibility application. Construction activity, fencing, and driveway constraints The RPVMC and required application findings do not require an assessment of potential issues that may arise during the construction phase in analyzing development projects. However, construction fencing will be imposed as a Condition of Approval, and the Applicant has presented plans on construction staging and related activities during the June 22 Planning Commission meeting. Fire Department access The proposed project would require review and approval from the Los Angeles County Fire Department during the Building and Safety Division’s plan check process, prior to Building Permit issuance 8 Project Concerns Project Revisions and/or Staff Response Impacts to potential wildlife habitat The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) reviewed and approved the biology report submitted by the Applicant and conducted a subsequent site visit after concerns were raised during the March 9 Planning Commission meeting. The PVPLC concluded that the proposed project will not have significant adverse impacts to native habitat with the avoidance measures found in the biology report that will be incorporated as a Condition of Approval. Easement infringement onto the adjacent property owner’s parcel The Easement Settlement Agreement between the Applicant’s property and adjacent property owner will serve as a basis in resolving issues related to damages to the shared driveway, retaining wall, and any other existing improvements within the easement area caused by the proposed project Applicability of the Extreme Slope Permit Extreme Slope Permit is specifically applied to decks or flagpoles on an extreme slope per RPVMC §17.76.060 2) Code Consideration and Analysis – Staff Recommendation for Approval Pursuant to RPVMC §17.70.010, §17.76.040(B)(2), and §17.66.010, the proposed project requires a Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit . Based upon detailed analyses of the code and required findings, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission conditionally approve the proposed project as a series of revisions were made to bring the project into compliance with all applicable requirements. Staff’s findings are summarized below, and a complete discussion of code considerations and analyses of the findings can be found in the March 9, 2021 Planning Commission staff report, which were supplemented further in the subsequent June 22, 2021, Planning Commission staff report listed in the “Background” section above. Table No. 3: Code Consideration and Analysis Code Consideration Staff’s Analysis Site Plan Review 1. Compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of scale, architectural style, and setbacks a) Scale: The structure size is within range and comparable to the two immediate closest homes sharing the same driveway access. The lot coverage is less than the maximum allowed in a neighborhood with varying lot sizes and lot coverage. b) Architectural Style: 9 Code Consideration Staff’s Analysis The proposed residence includes architectural features and materials in both the façade treatment and roof design that are found within the neighborhood, which is comprised of California Ranch and Mediterranean style homes with diverse architectural features and materials that accent the residences. Various articulations are proposed to the façades and roof that create visual interest so as not to appear continuously flat, uniform, or bulky. c) Setbacks: The proposed project will meet or exceed the minimum required front, side, and rear yard setbacks where the setbacks found on other neighboring properties vary with some greater or less than the RPVMC requirements. 2. No unreasonable infringement of privacy of abutting residences The project proposes a 210 ft2 balcony to the south of the master bedroom and a 678 ft2 roof deck extending from the second floor at the southwest corner of the residence. Landscaping strips are proposed along the front and side yards to limit line of sight that can also serve as privacy screening measures. Major Grading Permit 1. Necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot Criteria met. Grading is required to notch the residence into the hillside lot; no grading is proposed to create functional flat surface areas for private outdoor use. 2. No significant adverse effects to visual relationships nor the views from neighboring properties Criteria met. The project will not adversely affect protected view frames of properties to the north, south, and west as their viewing areas do not look in the direction of, or over the project site. 3. Minimizes disturbance to natural contours and finished contours are natural Criteria met. Disturbance is limited to proposed residence and ancillary site improvements. 10 Code Consideration Staff’s Analysis 4. Preserves natural topographic features and appearances to blend into the natural topography Criteria met. 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 Criteria met as noted above in the Site Plan Review finding no. 1. 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 Not applicable as the project does not involve modifications to streets or other public infrastructure. 8. Not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat Criteria met. The proposed project will not significantly impact native habitats nor adversely affect special-interest species with the implementation of avoidance measures imposed as a Condition of Approval. 9. Conforms to grading criteria regarding slope steepness, depth, retaining walls, and driveways No. Standards for grading on slopes over 50% and maximum depth of cut/fill cannot be met. Deviations to the finding may be made pursuant to RPVMC §17.76.040(E)(10). 10. Additional findings when deviating from grading criteria No. 9 Finding met. 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 Minor Exception Permit 1. Warranted by practical difficulties, unnecessary hardship, or to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of the Code The proposed terraced planters adjacent to the garage in the front yard up to 8 feet 6 inches in height are warranted based on practical difficulties of the site’s existing steep topography. 3) Planning Commission Findings for Denial On July 13, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution 2021-12 (Attachment A), making the following findings to deny the project without prejudice: 11 • The Major Grading Permit is not warranted as the Planning Commission made findings that the extent of the proposed grading to accommodate a new residence built entirely on an extreme slope, which includes slopes over 50% steepness, is excessive and beyond what is necessary to reasonably develop the project site . In this sense, the proposed grading conducted entirely on an extreme slope does not comply with the intent of the code and would be detrimental to the public safety or other properties. • As the scope of work under the Major Grading Permit is closely related to the Site Plan Review and Minor Exception Permit, the Planning Commission denied the incidental applications based upon the reasons set forth above as issues related to these applications were subsidiary. Therefore, no specific findings applicable to the Site Plan Review and Minor Exception Permit were made . As noted above and detailed in the adopted resolution , the Planning Commission denied the proposed project due to continued concerns related to constructing the proposed project entirely on an extreme slope of which the steepness of the slope included areas 50% or steeper. Based on findings that the Major Grading Permit cannot be warranted, findings for the Site Plan Review and Minor Exception Permit applications were not considered. 4) Bases of Appeal The appeal seeks to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the proposed project. The Appellant’s bases of the appeal (shown in bold) and Staff’s responses are provided below: 1. Denial of the project was not based on any substantial evidence of a threat to public health, safety or welfare as there were no findings made to deny the project. Staff Response: As mentioned above, the Planning Commission’s denial was largely based on concerns related to the proposed residence built entirely on an extreme slope, including areas of 50% or steeper slopes, that may have adverse impacts to the public health, safety or welfare. Specifically, the Planning Commission opined that allowing construction of a new single-family residence entirely on an extreme slope was not the intent of RPVMC §17.48.060(G) and §17.76.040(E)(9)(a) w hen it was first codified. The aforementioned sections of the code include provisions that allow construction of new residences on legally created lots prior to City incorporation as described below: • §17.48.060(G): Construction of new residences (including habitable and nonhabitable space) on previously undeveloped, recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975, or if within Eastview, existing as of January 5, 1983, which are not currently zoned open space/hazard, if the director or planning commission finds that such construction, as conditioned, will not threaten 12 the public health, safety and welfare, provided that such structures are consistent with the permitted and uses and development standards for the underlying zoning designations of the lots. (This subsection provides an exception to the prohibition of grading on extreme slopes per RPVMC §17.48.060: “No development or construction of any structure shall be allowed on any extreme slope (grade of 35 percent or greater), except as follows:”) • §17.76.040(E)(9)(a): Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35 % shall be allowed on recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975, or if within Eastview, existing as of January 5, 1983, which are not currently zoned open space/hazard, if the director or planning commission finds that such grading, as conditioned, will not threaten the public health, safety, and welfare. To further assess the intent of the code related to grading on extreme slope, Staff prepared a brief history of the City’s grading provisions in the table below: Table No. 4: City’s Code Provisions Related to Extreme Slope Year Summary 1975 The City’s first grading ordinance adopted (Ord. No. 78); the grading application did not codify criteria related to extreme slopes but noted that such areas shall be regulated subject to the Open Space Hazard District , which was established to prevent unsafe development of hazardous areas and allowed limited recreational use without permanent struct ures. In addition, the original General Plan noted that low intensity activities would only be allowed on extreme slopes. 1977 Ord. No. 89 adopted; provided the basis for RPVMC §17.76.040(E)(9)(a) to allow grading on slopes exceeding 35% for existing recorded and legally subdivided lots that are not zoned open space hazard. 1997 Ord. No. 320 adopted; created additional grading criteria (i.e., RPMVC §17.76.040(E)(10)) to deviate from RPVMC §17.76.040(E)(9)) which includes development standards for grading on extreme slopes (35% or greater), finished slope steepness, maximum depth of grading, restricted grading areas, and retaining walls. 2007 Ord. No. 463 adopted; codified similar language under RPVMC §17.48.060 (Extreme Slope) that is consistent with RPVMC§17.76.040(E)(9)(a) to allow new residences on extreme slopes. From Staff’s research, provisions related to extreme slopes appear to have been gradually amended to allow reasonable development of legally created vacant lots with extreme slopes. This is in part due to the fact that many neighborhoods and subdivision of lots within the City were created under Los Angeles County’s jurisdiction, where it appears that building on extreme slope areas was not a restricting factor. In addition, without the relevant provisions allowing construction on these lots zoned for residential development, it would deprive the property owners of their right to build and enjoy a substantial property right. However, it should be noted that despite provisions to allow 13 new residences on extreme slopes, most of the vacant lots left in the City to this day remain undeveloped due to the physical, timely, and financial challenges of developing on extreme slopes, among other factors. Thus far, Staff has based its recommendation to approve the Major Grading Permit as it relates to the aforementioned RPVMC §17.48.060(G) and §17.76.040(E)(9)(a), which explicitly allows such construction under certain conditions. Specifically, the project site was created in 1967, prior to City incorporation, is not currently zoned open space/hazard; and will not threaten public health, safety, and welfare as demonstrated by reviews of the project geology report, biology report, and drainage plans. It should be noted that the geology report submitted by the Applicant was conditionally approved by the City’s geologist, demonstrating that the project would not have an adverse impact to the site and surrounding properties with a slope stability analysis resulting in a safety factor of 1.981. In addition, upon receiving Planning entitlements, the proposed project will be subject to all applicable Building Code, and technical code requirements imposed during the Building and Safety Division plan check process, as well as a series of inspections throughout the construction of the project. In terms of deviating from the grading criteria set forth in RPVMC §17.76.040(E)(9)(d) that restricts grading on slopes over 50% steepness, Staff supported the proposed grading on slopes over 50% as the existing topography of the buildable area cannot reasonably allow a residence without encroaching into such areas as shown in Figure 1. below. Specifically, Staff made the 10th grading finding (i.e., RPVMC §17.76.040(E)(10)) provided that: • Grading is limited to the residence and ancillary site improvements that do not include the creation of any flat or functional yard areas; • Approval of the project does not constitute special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity as the lot contains extraordinary topographical constraints not normally evidenced in other lots in the vicinity that have been graded in the past to create building pads or less sloping conditions; • The project will not be detrimental to public safety nor to other property as previously stated above; and • A Notice of Decision on the project shall be given to appropriate parties. Furthermore, it should be noted that it is not uncommon to receive applications that require deviations from the grading criteria to which Staff only warrants upon reviewing the project in compliance with §17.76.040(E)(10) of the RPVMC. Lastly, there have been precedents for processing new single -family residences on vacant lots with extreme slopes that Staff considered while reviewing this project. For 1 The City geologist’s review requires a minimum baseline safety factor of 1.5 14 example, 30148 Cartier Drive2 and 14 Bronco Drive3 have been proposed and approved entirely on extreme slope where the average slope steepness was 41% and 50%, respectively. Based on the above, Staff continues to support all applicable findings for the requested Major Grading Permit. However, as the provisions related to construction and grading on extreme slope have different interpretations between the Planning Commission and Staff, it is requested that the City Council provide its interpretation of the code so as to clarify how it should be applied to this project and others moving forward. 2. Denial of the project was arbitrary based on earlier land use approvals for the same lot and land use approvals for projects on substantially similar lots. Staff Response: On February 6, 2008, the Director of Community Development conditionally approved the construction of a new 4,913 ft 2, three-story, single-family 2 On February 8, 2011, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a new 4,477 ft 2, two-story, single-family residence with 3,640 yd3 of associated grading 3 On July 27, 2020, the Director conditionally approved a new 5,526 ft2, split-story residence and ancillary site improvements with 991.4 yd3 of associated grading 15 SETBACK LINE [ Figure 1) r--___jj I Slope Steepness 0%-3 5% 35%-50% OVER 50% Total Builda ble Area Outside of Setbacks Pe rc entage 2.9% 42.1% 55% 100% residence measuring 30 feet in overall height with 499 yd 3 of associated grading on the same project site. On June 2, 2009, the Director-approved entitlements expired while in the Building and Safety Division plan check process and the project was never built. Numerous aspects of the previously approved project and the current project are different in terms of project layout, design, scope of work, concerns raised by interested parties, and decision-making body, to name a few. The only similarity is the project site itself and the applicable code and regulations. That being said, it cannot be guaranteed that the project outcome will be the same not only for this project but any other project that goes through a similar process, as the applications sought are discretionary and are processed on a case-by-case basis. The Appellant states that three other projects that involved grading on slopes over 50% were conditionally approved by the Planning Commission which are located at 10 Toprail Lane, 48 Rockinghorse Road, and 6004 Palos Verdes Drive South . The Appellant is correct in that all three projects required deviating from the grading criteria that restricts grading on slopes over 50% in steepness. However, it should be noted that these three applications are different from the proposed project as they did not propose building entirely on an extreme slope and only partially required grading on slopes over 50%. Hence, the aforementioned lots are not considered substantially similar , and the degree to which the Planning Commission raised concerns over the grading deviations and RPVMC §17.76.040(E)(10) cannot be the same. However, as noted in Bases of Appeal No. 1 above, there are precedents where the Planning Commission and the past Director approved projects entirely on extreme slopes at 30148 Cartier Drive and 14 Bronco Drive, respectively. 3. Denial of the project violated due process as the City had previously provided conceptual approval to the plan. Staff Response: Due process requires a duly noticed hearing and an opportunity to be heard. The project as designed required Planning Commission review per RPVMC §17.76.040(D)(4) as more than 1,000 yd3 of associated grading is proposed to accommodate the residence and ancillary site improvements. The public hearings before the Planning Commission constituted a due process, and the current appeal hearing before the City Council provides an additional (De Novo) review procedure, thus providing additional due process. The public hearings constitute adequate due process and there is no violation as the Appellant claims. It should also be noted that Staff‘s review of the project and recommendation to the Planning Commission in no way constitutes an approval, preliminary or otherwise. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Public Correspondence In response to the public notice issued on August 12, 2021, regarding the City Council appeal hearing, Staff received three public comments (Attachment D). The first comment by the adjacent property owner at 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West, and second comment from a group of nine anonymous parties, raised the same concerns from previous public 16 hearings related to slope stability, Neighborhood Compatibility, privacy, drainage, driveway blockage during construction, communication with the Property Owner, glass railing that create privacy impacts, potential impacts to wildlife habitat, and Staff oversight, all of which have been addressed in the previous staff reports and Planning Commission meetings, and summarized earlier in this staff report. The first commenting party also raised concerns with the language in the Planning Commission resolution as it did not appear to incorporate the public concerns or comments from the Planning Commissioners. It should be noted that the posted Planning Commission resolution was later revised during the meeting to better reflect the position of the Planning Commission’s denial of the project by reading into the record. In addition, the first commenting party requested clarification on how landscaping strips along the south side yard will mitigate privacy concerns while protecting views from the project site. A rendering was provided by the Applicant during the June 22 Planning Commission meeting and also included in their comment letter, as shown in Figure 2 below. Although landscaping is proposed to mitigate privacy impacts, it should be noted that because landscaping is subject to maintenance to thrive, it is not recommended to be a Condition of Approval for privacy screening. The second commenting party also noted that the Californians for Home Ownership, which submitted a letter (click here) to the City when the adoption of a Planning Commission resolution to deny the project was scheduled for the July 13 Planning Commission meeting, do not have a valid claim in recovering any attorney fees should there be litigation caused by denying the proposed project. 17 Renderings of Privacy Screening for 30506 Side and Back Yard 30506 Side Yard from 30504 Deck 30506 Side Yard with Railing 30506 Side Yard and Back Yard from Deck w i th landscaping screening . [Figure 2) Vi ew from the seating area on the deck . The last comment was submitted by the property owner (Appellant) stating an overview of the due diligence involved in purchasing the property, the revisions made thus far to accommodate concerns, the geological stability of the site verified by experts, and how the project meets the required findings per the RPVMC. CONCLUSION: The different conclusions between the Planning Commission and Staff primarily stemmed from how the code language is interpreted in terms of allowing construction of new single- family residences on extreme slopes, including grading over slopes in excess of 50%, and allowing deviations from the grading criteria set forth in RPVMC §17.76.040(E)(10). As previously noted, the Planning Commission delved into the intent of how the provision was created and felt that an entire project on extreme slope should be avoided or rectified through amending the code. On the other hand, Staff continues to support the proposed project based on the existing code as it reads and how it has been applied to other projects throughout the years. 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 the City Council review the proposed project and provide input on how the code language should be interpreted regarding the construction and grading on extreme slopes (including slopes in excess of 50%) to accommodate a new residence. Should the City Council affirm Staff’s interpretation and past practice of the code, thereby allowing the construction of a new single-family residence on an extreme slope, the project may then be considered by the City Council on the merits of the project applications and compliance with the various provisions of the Zoning Code. The City Council, while maintaining jurisdiction of the project’s appeal, may consider remanding the project back to the Planning Commission to complete its review of the project as a whole, which includes considering the Site Plan Review and Minor Exception Permit applications at a duly noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission would be serving in the advisory capacity and would forward their recommendation to the City Council for its consideration at a future public hearing. Chairman Perestam will attend the September 21 meeting to present to the City Council the basis for the Planning Commission’s findings with respect to building on extreme slope and to answer any questions regarding the Planning Commission’s actions on the proposed project. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Grant the appeal, thereby overturning the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit (Case No. 18 PLGR2019-0025) without prejudice, and direct Staff to bring back a Resolution memorializing this decision on September 21, 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. 3. Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit (Case No. PLGR2019-0025) without prejudice, and direct Staff to bring back a Resolution memorializing this decision on September 21, 2021. 19 A-1P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A SITE PLAN REVIEW, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,350 FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED) SPLIT-STORY RESIDENCE AND ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS WITH 1,049 YD3 OF ASSOCIATED GRADING ON A VACANT LOT AT 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (CASE NO. PLGR2019-0025). WHEREAS, on October 3, 2019, Luis De Moraes, on behalf of property owner David Hass (collectively, "Applicant'') submitted Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit applications, requesting approval to construct a new residence and ancillary site improvements with associated grading on a vacant lot located at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019, staff completed an initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans. The Applicant submitted additional information on several occasions, induding revisions to the plan and the silhouette to address concerns raised by the neighboring properties, and on January 8, 2021, staff deemed the application complete for processing, setting the action deadline to March 9, 2021; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2020, 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 15-day time period to submit comments; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2021, a courtesy notice was sent out to all property owners within a 500-foot radius from the project site to extend the commenting period for an additional 15 days as the project silhouette required adjustments to repair the posts and flags due to adverse weatherconditions during the original commenting period; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2021, a subsequent notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius from the project site as staff became aware of additional grading noted on the geology report that was inadvertently missing from the proposed grading plans that will result in over 1,000 yd3 of associated grading, which requires review by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time the application was continued to a date uncertain, to provide an opportunity for the Applicant and staff to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission related to Neighborhood Compatibility, privacy, grading, drainage, potential wildlife habitat, and foliage analysis; and P.C. Resolution No. 2021-12 Page 1 of 4 A-2WHEREAS, on June 3, 2021, a public notice was mailed to property owners withil a 500-foot radius of the project site and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, providing a 15-day time period to submit comments and concerns in relation to the revised plans; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to reconsider the proposed application, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. 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(a) (new construction of a single-family residence) of the CEQA Guidelines: the project involves the construction of a single-family residence in the RS-4 zoning district, which is a residential zone; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project involves the construction of a new 4,350 ft2 (garage induded) split-story residence and ancillary site improvements with 1,049 yd3 of associated grading on a vacant lot. Section 2: The Planning Commission is required to make findings for the Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit to construct a new 4,350 ft2 single.family residence and ancillary site improvements with 1,049 yd3 of associated grading. The Planning Commission finds that the requested entitlements are not warranted as the extent of proposed grading on an extreme slope (>35%), which includes slopes over 50% steepness, to accommodate construction of a new residence is excessive and beyond what is necessary to reasonably develop the project site. While §17.48.060(G) and §17.76.040(E)(9)(a) of the Randlo Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) allows the construction of new residences on extreme slopes under certain conditions subject to the Planning Commission's discretion, the Planning Commission finds that a project sudl as this one, that would be built entirely on an extreme slope, does not comply with the intent of the code. More specifically, while subsection (E)(10) of Section 17.76.040 of the RPV Municipal Code allows for a Grading Permit to be approved for development in excess of the limits set forth in subsection (E)(9) (whidl provides that "[g]rading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35 percent shall be allowed on recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975 or if within Eastview, existing as of January 5, 1983, whidl are not currently zoned open spaceJhazard, if the director or planning commission finds that sudl P.C. Resolution No. 2021-12 Page 2 of 4 A-3grading, as conditioned, will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare"), the Planning Commission does not find that erecting an entire building on a slope exceeding 50% in steepness is consistentwith the intent of the Municipal Code. Furthermore, the Planning Commission cannot affirmatively make the following Major Grading Permit findings setforth in §17.76.040(E) below: (1) The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) of this title. (9)(d) No fill or cut shall be permitted on a slope exceeding 50 percent gradient, unless the grading is on a 67 percent slope, allowed pursuant to subsection (E)(9)(f) of this section .1 Next, the Planning Commission cannot make the findings at Section 17.76.040(E)(10) including subsection (E)(10)(d) which requires that the Planning Commission find that departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) of this section will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property. To the contrary the Planning Commission has found that the proposed project would be detrimental to the public safety or other properties. Issues have also been raised and testimony offered by neighbors and other interested parties related to concerns over privacy, bulk, and mass. The scope of work under the Major Grading Permit is dosely related to the Site Plan Review and Minor Exceptia, Permit. Because the Planning Commission has denied the instant application based upa, the reasons set forth above, it does not reach these subsidiary issues and has not made specific findings applicable thereto. Section 3: 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, July 29, 2021. A $3,100.00 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, July 29, 2021. Section 4: 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(8) of the RPVMC 1 17.76.040(E)(9)(f) relates to driveways and is therefore inapplicable. P.C. Resolution No. 2021-12 Page 3 of 4 A-4PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of July 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHURA, JAMES, SANTAROSA, CHAIRMAN PERESTAM NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: COMMISSIONERS HAMIL AND LEON ABSENT: COMMISSIONER SAADATNEJADI Chair of the Planning Commission Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2021-12 Page 4 of 4 July 27, 2021 VIA E-MAIL (krukavina@rpvca.gov) AND CONFIRMED BY HAND DELIVERY Mr. Ken Rukavina Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Case No. PLGR2019-0025 Property Address: 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West Mr. Rukavina, I am litigation and land use counsel for David Haas and Ann Marie Won, the project owners for a planned home at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West, Case No. PLGR2019-0025. This matter was before the Planning Commission most recently on July 13, 2021, where the Commission voted to approve a resolution of denial following a June 22, 2021 public hearing on the project. We note that the City has yet to respond to our prior letter of July 12, 2021 raising concerns about that denial. Our prior letter outlined that the Commission’s denial of the project: 1) Was not based on any substantial evidence of a threat to public health, safety or welfare; 2) Was arbitrary based on earlier land use approvals for the same lot. 3,) Was arbitrary based on land use approvals for projects on substantially similar lots; and 4) Violated due process insofar as the City had previously provided conceptual approval to the plan. Prior to purchasing this lot in 2019, Mr. Haas and Ms. Won met with the City Planning Department to review the file. They wanted to confirm that it was a legal/buildable lot with solid geology on which they could reasonably expect to build their home. They confirmed that a larger house had been approved in 2008, and that the rules had not changed in the subsequent years. City Staff’s conceptual approval of the project was not surprising given that the lot’s legal status predated the City’s incorporation. As noted by staff in its June 22, 2021 staff report: Pursuant to §17.48.060(G) of the RPVMC, construction of new residences (including habitable and non-habitable space) on previously undeveloped, recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975, are allowed on extreme slopes provided that such construction, as conditioned, will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare, and that such structures are consistent with the permitted uses and development standards for the underlying zoning of the lots. The project site was created in 1967 and the geology report submitted by the Applicant was conditionally approved by the City’s geologist demonstrating that the project would not have an B-1 IIJEFF LEWIS LAW 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200 Rolling Hills Estates , CA 90274 Office (310) 935-4001 Jefflew islaw .com Page 2 July 27, 2021 adverse impact to the site and surrounding properties. The soils report confirmed the stability of the slope. They purchased the lot, hired a local architect familiar with the City’s codes, and went on to work collaboratively with planning department to ensure they were meeting all requirements for approval. After receiving the initial recommendation of approval from the City Planning Department, the project went before the Planning Commission on March 9, 2021, and resulted additional information being needed prior to approval (i.e., drainage plan, landscaping plan, etc.). The project returned to the Planning Commission on June 22, 2021; at which time it was denied based on the grading on slopes over 50%. It was quite a shock considering the prior approval in 2008 of a much larger home on the same property, the Planning Department never raising this concern over the course of 18 months working together, and the Commission not providing any findings backed by substantial evidence justifying the denial. In addition, third party non-profit entities have written to the City to raise issues regarding whether a denial of this project violates the Habitability Accountability Act (“HAA.”) The applicants incorporate by reference those letters and HAA arguments. Pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.80.070, Mr. Haas and Ms. Won hereby appeal from that July 13, 2021 resolution of denial for the reasons set forth in our prior correspondence, the letters of July 9, 2021 by Californians for Homeownership, the July 13, 2021 letter by California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund as well as the below described reasons. We encourage the City Council to review the three videos of the Planning Commission meetings of March 9, 2021, June 22, 2021, and July 13, 2021. At the June 22, 2021, meeting the Commission simply did not make any findings to deny the project and one Commissioner who led the charge against our project focused on the need to modify the Code. The Commission of course is required to make actual findings based on evidence in the administrative record, and per the existing Code. Ultimately, the Commission barely voted 3-2 to deny our project. The resulting Resolution of Denial states: “To the contrary the Planning Commission has found the proposed project would be detrimental to the public safety or other properties.” There simply was no discussion of this during any of the three commission meetings. In fact, the administrative record includes staff’s testimony that the project was safe as evidenced by the preliminary approval of the soils and geology report by the City, the eventual review of the project plans by professionals per the Building Code, the inspection by the City of the improvements, and testimony by City staff that the slopes on the site are stable. Ron Dragoo, the City’s Engineer, said: “I heard from a couple of speakers, they’re concerned about the factor of safety for slope stability. And I want to just note that per the report in the section I read, it has a factor of safety of 1.9. So it’s definitely stable.” We do not understand how findings can be made that were not made by the Commission, and which contradict the City’s professional staff and the multiple expert reports. . Please note that the resolution does include the fact that the Commission was otherwise fine with the project. Per the resolution “…despite the Planning Commission not taking exception to issues related to privacy, bulk and mass, drainage, and preservation of potential habitat.” On July 13, 2021, the Planning Commission met in closed session due to the letter from Californians for Home Ownership. They then convened to open session and reviewed the Resolution for Denial and added testimony to the record that there were findings beyond grading to deny the project. These remarks demonstrate the Commission’s awareness that the original finding regarding grading in the resolution was not supported by testimony at the June 22, 2021 meeting. Their remarks also contradict the previously B-2 Page 3 July 27, 2021 referenced language in the resolution that the Commission did not have issue with the project other than grading. Please note that many of the concerns generated by the neighbor at 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West are due to their past illegal actions of building thirteen feet onto this property, cutting halfway through the front yard. The ensuing lawsuit resulted in the City legitimizing the illegal construction with a variance to allow the 30506 property a mere two and a half foot setback when 15 feet was required. One of the findings for a variance made by the City was that it “…will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area.” As the City previously made the finding that the variance would not be detrimental to this property, any new findings for this project involving grading and privacy must be made as if the 30506 property’s structure was 13 feet further away, and that Mr. Haas and Ms. Won would be able to grade as if the 30506 Palos Verdes Drive was located legally. In other words, the owners of the 30506 property should not be given greater rights to object by virtue of the City’s approval of their 13 foot encroachment into the setback. This appeal by Mr. Haas and Ms. Won tracks the same format as the findings required for the requested Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit applications. The below analysis closely follows most of the analysis prepared by the City’s professional staff when it recommended project approval to the Planning Commission, not once but twice. Additionally, a larger home with more impacts was previously approved by the City. Mr. Haas and Ms. Won remind the City that the Council’s review of the Planning Commission is de novo and the Council is not bound by or required to defer to the Planning Commission’s vote of denial here. (Mun. Code § 17.80.070(F).) SITE PLAN REVIEW The Site Plan Review procedure enables the City Council to review development proposals for conformity with the provisions of Title 17 of the RPVMC, and for the manner in which they are applied. A summary of the critical project statistics for the RS-4 zoning district are described in Table No. 1 below: Table No. 1: Project Statistics CRITERIA CODE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RESIDENCE Lot Size 10,000 ft2 13,350 ft2 Structure Size (garage included) N/A 4,467 ft2 Setbacks (Minimum) Front 20 feet 20 feet Side (north) 5 feet 7 feet-6 inches Side (south) 5 feet 7 feet-2 inches Rear 15 feet 15 feet-6 inches Lot Coverage* (Maximum) 50% 47.76% Enclosed Parking 2 spaces 2 spaces Structure Height (Maximum) B-3 I I Page 4 July 27, 2021 Highest elevation of the existing building pad covered by the structure to the highest roof ridgeline 16 feet 4 feet Lowest finished grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab to the highest ridge of the building 30 feet 30 feet * Lot coverage is based on the net lot size of 10,457 ft2 (Lot area minus the flag lot “pole portion” access easement), per RPVMC §17.48.040 Pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.02.030(B)(1)(a), a new primary dwelling unit that is proposed to be developed on a vacant lot shall be determined to be compatible with the neighborhood. As the proposed project involves construction of a new single-family residence on a vacant lot, an analysis of Neighborhood Compatibility is required. The City’s Neighborhood Compatibility finding is intended to ensure projects are designed in a manner that allows new construction or the expansion of existing structures, while preserving the character of the existing neighborhood. Pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.02.040(A)(6), “Neighborhood Character” means the existing characteristics in terms of the following (in bold type): A. Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures. Compatibility with neighborhood character is based on a comparison of the proposed project to other existing structures located within the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised of the 20 closest properties located within the same zoning district. Table No. 2 below compares the lot size, structure size, number of stories, and the presence of balconies or roof decks at the residences found within the immediate neighborhood. B-4 Page 5 July 27, 2021 Table No. 2: Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis Address Lot Size (ft2) Structure Size (ft2) No. of Stories Balcony /Roof deck (Y/N) 30413 Via Cambron 10,050 2,720 1 N 30423 Via Cambron 10,080 3,096 1 N 30429 Via Cambron 11,020 3,065 1 N 30435 Via Cambron 12,400 2,180 1 N 30438 Via Cambron 10,750 2,852 1 N 30441 Via Cambron 11,990 2,406 1 N 30445 Via Cambron 12,430 2,312 1 N 30451 Via Cambron 10,470 2,192 1 N 30457 Via Cambron 10,040 3,292 1 N 30461 Via Cambron 10,700 3,415 1 N 30463 Via Cambron 12,620 3,008 2 N 30502 Palos Verdes Dr. West 10,450 4,671 2 Y 30506 Palos Verdes Dr. West 27,880 4,430 1 N 30503 Rue Langlois 26,840 2,453 2 N 30509 Rue Langlois 26,010 3,128 1 N 30517 Rue Langlois 30,830 2,487 1 N 30525 Rue Langlois 17,820 2,677 1 N 30531 Rue Langlois 17,820 2,487 1 N 30537 Rue Langlois 21,310 2,417 1 N 30545 Rue Langlois 16,340 2,487 1 N Average 15,893 2,889 - - 30504 Palos Verdes Dr. West Proposed 13,350 4,350 2 Y *Note: The above calculations for structure size are based on building permits on file with the City and include the garage area, which, if garage area was not documented on the building permit, was calculated based on the Municipal Code’s requirement for two (2) parking spaces with minimum dimensions for each individual parking stall being 9 ft x20 ft (180 ft2.). As reflected in Table No. 2 above, the immediate neighborhood is comprised of single-story, split-story or two-story residential structures that range in size between 2,180 ft² to 4,671 ft², with an average structure size of 2,889 ft². As proposed, the total structure size of the project is 4350 ft² (garage included) which will be the third largest home in the immediate neighborhood and the smallest of the three adjacent properties on Palos Verdes Drive West. Unlike most other homes in the immediate neighborhood that were constructed on a building pad as part of tract developments, the development of the project site includes a customized lot configuration based on topographic conditions and a subdivision of a larger lot. The project site is unlike any other lot in the area. It is an upsloping lot that requires the proposed residence to be notched into the existing slope as a split- story residence per section 17.02.040(B)(1)(a) of the Municipal Code. The unique configuration of the project site as a flag lot with the buildable portion in the middle of a steep transitional slope increases the visibility of the split-story residence to appear two-story from afar and the public right-of-way. The house once constructed will be almost hidden from Palos Verdes Drive. The proposed lot coverage of 47.76% is less than the maximum allowed lot coverage in the RS-4 zoning district (50%). Based on an aerial survey, the immediate neighborhood contains properties of varying lot sizes and lot coverages due to having a mix of tract developments as well as customized developments in B-5 Page 6 July 27, 2021 the vicinity. Therefore, City Staff previously found that the proposed lot coverage will be compatible with the neighborhood and the City Council should also make this finding. B. Architectural styles, including façade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials. The immediate neighborhood is comprised of California Ranch and Mediterranean style homes with diverse architectural features and materials that accent the residences. The architectural style of the proposed project represents a modern home that includes features such as a flat roof, with façades that emphasize horizontal and vertical lines. The proposed architectural design includes architectural features and materials in both the façade treatment and roof design that are consistent with the neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed residence includes façades that will consist of smooth stucco walls, wood sidings, and flat roofs, all of which are elements existing in the immediate (Via Cambron) neighborhood with slight variations from one another. The materials for the proposed balcony and roof deck will include stucco and glass railings. As the existing balcony found in the immediate neighborhood also features an uncommon design and material with the use of balustrades, the proposed balcony and roof deck will be compatible with the use of more commonly found materials. The height of the proposed residence complies with the Municipal Code’s “by-right” 16 feet/30 feet building envelope standards for an up-sloping lot (proposed 4 feet/30 feet). In addition, there are three other homes in the immediate neighborhood which are also designed as split-story or two-story residences. Lastly, open space between structures will not be affected as the setbacks will exceed the minimum required to provide open space for adequate light and air between the proposed residence and abutting properties. Therefore, the City Staff concluded that the proposed project will be consistent with the architectural style found within the immediate neighborhood. The City Council should accept Staff’s recommendation and make this finding. C. Front, side, and rear yard setbacks. According to the Municipal Code, structures on lots zoned RS-4 created prior to City incorporation shall maintain a minimum 20-foot front, 5-foot side, and 15-foot rear yard setbacks. The proposed project will meet or exceed the minimum required front, side, and rear yard setbacks with a 20-foot front, 7 foot-6 inch north side, 7 foot-2 inch south side, and a 15 foot-6 inch rear setback. Based on an aerial survey, the setbacks found on other neighboring properties vary with some greater or less than the Municipal Code requirements. Hence, the City Staff found this proposed project is consistent with other immediate homes in terms of its setbacks. The City Council should likewise make this finding of consistency. The City’s professional staff found that the proposed project to be compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood in terms of scale, architectural style, and setbacks. Therefore, the City Council should conclude that this finding can be made. Privacy Infringement Pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.02.030(D)(4)(a), “A roof deck or balcony shall not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy, as defined by the height variation findings discussed in Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e)(ix) of the occupants of abutting residences.” Pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.96.1370, ‘Abutting parcels’ means two or more lots or parcels of land sharing a common boundary line.” The project proposes a 210 ft2 balcony to the south of the master bedroom and a 678 ft2 roof deck at the southwest corner of the residence. B-6 Page 7 July 27, 2021 1. 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West It should be noted that the City’s guidelines regarding privacy infringement state that “given the variety and number of options which are available to preserve indoor privacy, greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor privacy than to protecting indoor privacy.” For this property, greater weight is placed on protecting the usable outdoor area in the east and rear yard as opposed to the front yard area, which generally does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Additionally, the downstairs bedroom window and den have windows that look out across the front yard of this property towards the applicants’ driveway 1and front yard of 30506. These windows that look out over the front yard are the only windows in these rooms and share the same view as the view from the west side of the roof deck of this property. Even though there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy for a front yard, the roof deck does not substantially add to privacy concerns on the front yard of 30506. The proposed roof deck on the neighbor’s east side and rear yard patio areas are located approximately 20 feet and 100 feet away, respectively. The privacy impacts can be mitigated with the front and side yard landscaping Conditions of Approval that are being proposed. By doing so, the line of sight from the project’s roof deck towards the yard areas of 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West will be limited while preserving the views from the viewing area of the project site. It should be noted that due to the unusual configuration of this lot, the roof deck is the only outdoor living space this project will enjoy. The property has no usable yard. 2. 30502 Palos Verdes Drive West The property located to the west at 30502 Palos Verdes Drive West has a rear and side yard area approximately 10 feet lower than the elevation of the project site’s proposed motor-court. With dense foliage existing along the neighboring property’s rear property line, together with additional landscaping and a solid wood fence proposed by the applications, the proposed balcony will not have views into the rear yard of 30502 Palos Verdes Drive West, and the proposed roof deck is approximately 50 feet away with foliage in between that does not allow clear views. 3. Adjacent Properties to the North (on Via Cambron) Based on City Staff’s site visits and an aerial survey, the proposed balcony and roof deck will afford limited views into the rear yards of the properties to the north of the project site on Via Cambron due to the distance and landscaping condition to be imposed along the subject property’s north side yard. Specifically, the proposed balcony, which would primarily look in the opposite direction to the south, would be situated at least 90 feet to the closet usable private outdoor areas of the neighboring rear yards to the north. Furthermore, as part of the revision process,2 the north-facing railing on the roof deck has been revised from a glass railing to stucco in order to accommodate additional comments from the concerned parties that suggested further privacy mitigation measures to limit visibility into their rear yards. In order to memorialize the change in the railing material, staff proposed a Condition of Approval requiring the north-facing roof deck to be designed and maintained with stucco railing. 1 The owners of 30506 have an easement over the applicants’ driveway. 2 The revisions by Mr. Haas and Ms. Won include removal of a small deck and windows and raising the master bedroom windows on the north side of the house to address privacy concerns despite the distance of these neighbors. B-7 Page 8 July 27, 2021 Thus, as conditioned, the proposed balcony and roof deck would not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy to the abutting residences, City Staff concluded that this finding can be made and the Council should accept the recommendation of its professional staff. Ancillary Site Improvements The proposed construction of ancillary site improvements including two air conditioning units, eight skylights, a new motor-court, a 678 ft2 roof deck with outdoor kitchen, a 210 ft2 balcony, a stairway along each side yard, a 6-foot tall wood fence along the north side yard, a 5-foot tall retaining wall along the rear façade, and terraced planters up to 8 feet-6 inches in height along the front of the residence meet all of the Municipal Code requirements in the RS-4 zoning district, and therefore do not require a discretionary approval. MAJOR GRADING PERMIT Pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.76.040(B)(2)(b), a Major Grading Permit is required for projects that result in an excavation, fill or combination thereof, in excess of 50 yd3 in any 2-year period, or for projects that result in an excavation or fill greater than 5 feet in depth. Since the Applicant is proposing 1,049 yd3 of grading (798 yd3 of cut and 251 yd3 of fill with 555 yd3 of export) over an extreme slope (i.e., slope steepness 35% or greater) with a maximum depth of cut and fill of 15 feet and 10 feet, respectively, a Major Grading Permit is required. Municipal Code section 17.76.040(E) sets forth the criteria (in bold type) required in order for the City Council to approve a Major Grading Permit application: 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. “Primary use” means the most important purpose for which a particular zoning district was established. For example, in a residential district this would be considered a dwelling. The permitted primary use in the underlying Single-Family Residential (RS-4) zoning district is single-family residential. We are proposing to conduct 1,049 yd3 of grading to accommodate the proposed residence and ancillary site improvements, including terraced planters, a retaining wall, and a motor-court that will extend from the driveway. The City Staff previously concluded that the proposed grading is consistent with this permit finding, as the proposed grading is limited to accommodate the single-family residence and ancillary site improvements to support the residential development, with no additional grading activities proposed to create functional flat surface areas for private outdoor use on the project site. As such, this finding can be made by the City Council. 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(B), is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from pre-construction (existing grade). The buildable area of the lot contains steep transitional slopes that ascend from west to east. The views in the area are in the westerly direction consisting of the ocean, shorelines, and offshore islands, depending on the view span available from each of the neighboring properties’ viewing areas. There will be no potential view impacts to neighboring properties to the east as the highest roof ridgeline of the proposed residence will be lower than the pad elevation of the neighboring properties that have a view frame in the B-8 Page 9 July 27, 2021 direction of, and over the project site. The proposed project will not adversely affect protected view frames of properties to the north, south, and west as their viewing areas do not look in the direction of, or over the project site. It should also be noted that protected views under the Municipal Code do not include hillside views on a vacant lot that is developable. Therefore, the City Staff recommended that the proposed grading and related construction is not applicable to the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties, and this finding can be made. The City Council should follow Staff’s recommendation. 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. Most of the grading is proposed under the building footprint and motor-court, with limited grading outside of these areas to build terraced planters along the front yard, a retaining wall in the rear yard, and stairways along the side yards that will gradually slope up so as to blend seamlessly with the existing slope. Since the nature of the proposed grading is limited to the primary permitted use of the lot with existing contours beyond to be preserved and finished contours proposed to appear reasonably natural, City Staff previously recommended that this finding can be made and the City Council should follow this recommendation. 4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. The proposed grading for the project site will be limited to accommodate the primary use of the lot for a split-story residence and ancillary site improvements. As designed, the visible finished contours surrounding the proposed residence will appear natural by creating gradual finished slopes between the existing steep transitional slopes and the proposed improvements. The remaining slopes will be improved with landscaping, so as to maintain the appearance of the natural topography. In addition, the remaining slopes beyond the proposed project will be preserved and not altered. Therefore, City Staff recommended that this finding can be made and the City Council should make this finding. 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. As discussed in the ‘Site Plan Review’ section of this appeal, as conditioned, the construction related to the grading is compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, City Staff recommended that this finding can be made and the Council should follow staff’s recommendation. 6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas. The proposed grading does not involve a new residential tract and therefore, this finding does not apply. B-9 Page 10 July 27, 2021 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. The proposed project does not involve modifications to streets or other public infrastructure. Therefore, this finding does not apply. 8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. Based on the City’s NCCP/HCP (Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan) vegetation map, the lot appears to be located within an area identified as containing California Coastal Sage Scrub habitat. A biology report was prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy which found that the proposed project will not significantly impact native habitats nor adversely affect special-interest species with the implementation of avoidance measures. Staff has incorporated the avoidance measures outlined in the report, as part of the Conditions of Approval, which include conducting surveys on nesting birds, the El Segundo blue butterfly, special-status plant species, and wildlife species, prior to any vegetation removal. Therefore, this finding can be made. B-10 Page 11 July 27, 2021 9. The grading conforms to the following standards: Development Standard Grading Criteria Does the Proposed Project meet the standard a) Grading on slopes over 35% steepness Permitted on lots created prior to the City’s incorporation, not zoned OH, based upon a finding that the grading will not threaten public health, safety and welfare Yes b) Maximum finished slopes 35% steepness, unless next to a driveway where 67% steepness is permitted Yes c) Maximum depth of cut or fill Except for the excavation of a basement or cellar, a fill or cut not exceeding 5’ depth, unless based upon a finding that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary No. Maximum depth of 15 feet cut and 10 feet fill d) Restricted grading areas No grading on slopes over 50% steepness No e) Retaining walls One 8’-tall upslope wall (unless in front yard or street side setback) Yes One 3½’-tall downslope wall N/A Lots sloping with the street and other configurations, one 3½’-tall up or downslope wall on each required side yard N/A One 5’-tall up- or downslope wall adjacent to driveway Yes Retaining walls within building footprint may exceed 8’ Yes f) Driveways 20% maximum slope permitted, with a single 10’-long section up to 22% N/A 67% slopes permitted adjacent to driveways Yes Based on the table above, the proposed project meets standards (a), (b), (e) and (f) and does not meet standards (c) and (d). However, per Municipal Code section 17.76.040(E)(10), the City Council may grant a grading permit in excess of standards (c) and (d) upon making the following findings: a. Criteria 1 through 8 are satisfied. As described above, Criteria 1 through 8 are satisfied and, therefore, this finding can be made. B-11 Page 12 July 27, 2021 b. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of this section (Municipal Code § 17.76.040 Grading Permit); Pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.76.040(A), the purpose of grading is to permit reasonable development of land, ensuring the maximum preservation of natural scenic character of the area consistent with reasonable economic use of such property; and that each project complies with all goals and polices of the General Plan, any specific plan and any amendments. The proposed grading will occur on extreme slopes on a lot created prior to City incorporation where the buildable area of the lot contains slopes over 50% in steepness. Due to the steepness of the existing slope, the maximum depth of grading will exceed 5 feet (proposed 15 feet of cut and 10 feet of fill) to accommodate the proposed residence. Given that the proposed grading deviations are limited to the building footprint and ancillary site improvements with no grading to create a flat surface for private outdoor use, the project has been designed to minimize additional deviations to the grading criteria that could have been requested for a difficult lot encumbered by such steep slopes. Moreover, the proposed deviations will need to be accommodated to allow any residential development as the steepness of the lot is an existing condition that will continue to remain and a grading depth of 5 feet will not fully allow the property owner to utilize their lot for reasonable economic use. As the proposed grading deviations are necessary and consistent with the purposes of the grading permit to allow reasonable development of the lot, City Staff has recommended that this finding can be made and the Council should follow suit. c. Departure from the standards in criterion 9 will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; and As previously mentioned, the project site contains extreme slopes with an elevation difference from the front and rear property lines at approximately 40 - 50 feet for the buildable area. As such, the site contains extraordinary topographical constraints not normally evidenced in other lots in the vicinity that have a building pad or less sloping conditions. As the physical constraints of the lot are unique and require grading on the extreme slope to notch the proposed residence into the hill pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.02.040(B)(1)(a), grading on slopes exceeding 50% with a maximum cut and fill exceeding 5 feet will not constitute special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. This is especially true in light of the fact that the average slope of the buildable area is 49.6 percent. Therefore, City Staff has recommended that this finding can be made and the City Council should follow that recommendation. d. Departure from the standards of criterion 9 will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property. The proposed project will be required to meet all requirements of the Building Code, obtain the City geologist’s approval, and once a Building Permit is issued, a series of inspections will be required throughout project construction. The January 29, 2020 geology and geotechnical report by Keith Tucker, Registered Professional Geotechnical Engineer, and Andrew Stone, Registered Engineering Geologist, opined that: “The structures and grading will be safe from future landslides, slippage and settlements under the anticipated design loading and conditions. The proposed development shall meet all requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (Chapter 15.18.090, Section 107A) and will not impose any adverse geological effect on existing adjacent land or structures.” This report was approved by Cotton, Shires, and Associates, the City’s Engineering and Geology consultant on April 27, 2020. B-12 Page 13 July 27, 2021 Therefore, the Council should accept the Staff’s prior recommendation that the proposed deviation will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other properties, and this finding can be made. e. Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. If the City Council approves the Major Grading Permit, appropriate parties will be notified and therefore, the Council should accept the Staff’s prior recommendation that this finding can be made. Based on the discussion above, the proposed project meets all the criteria for a Major Grading Permit. MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT Pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b), fences, walls and hedges are limited to 8 feet in height, as measured from grade on the lower side, outside the front yard setback area. Pursuant to sections 17.66.020(A) and 17.76.030(D)(1)(b) of the Municipal Code, the City Council may grant a Minor Exception Permits (MEP) authorizing a fence or wall, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front yard setback area, up to 11 feet-6 inches in height, as measured from the grade on the lower side; and 7 feet in height, as measured from grade on the higher side. As the Applicant is proposing terraced planters up to 8 feet-6 inches in height, located outside of the front yard setback area, a MEP is required. Pursuant to Section 17.66.050 of the Municipal Code, the City Council may grant a MEP only upon making one of the following three findings: 1. The requested minor exception is warranted by practical difficulties; or 2. The requested minor exception is warranted by an unnecessary hardship; or 3. The requested minor exception is necessary to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of the Code. As previously mentioned, the buildable portion of the project site is comprised of extreme slopes with an elevation difference between the front and the rear property line at approximately 40 - 50 feet. The steepness of the hillside lot requires excavating up to 15 feet in depth to notch the proposed split-story residence into the existing slope. By doing so, a certain level of fill is necessary to elevate the opposite side of the excavated area to create a level pad area for the residential footprint. The proposed terraced planters adjacent to the garage in the front yard up to 8 feet-6 inches in height serves this purpose by supporting the elevated residence. It should be noted that per Municipal Code section 17.76.030(F)(1), walls are measured as a single unit if built or planted within 3 feet of each other, as measured from their closest points. The terraced planters are proposed at 1 foot-8 inches or 3 feet intervals along the front yard to elevate the proposed residence and thereby notching into the existing steep slope. While the height of the planters is individually measured at 2 feet-6 inches and 6 feet-6 inches tall, the planter height becomes 8 feet-6 inches as a single unit due to the less than 3 feet distance from each other. Given the unusual steepness of the lot, the alternatives to the proposed terraced planters measured as a single unit will be to widen the distance between the two planters to be more than 3 feet apart or build a single retaining wall up to 8 feet-6 inches in height. The first alternative will require additional grading in the front yard to increase the planter distance, which will result in unnecessary disturbance to the natural topography that should be preserved in its existing conditions in order to be consistent with the City’s grading criteria. Additionally, the other alternative will also be inconsistent with the City’s grading criteria due to the height of the retaining wall that will require excessive grading and be unsightly compared to a terraced design which provides visual relief. B-13 Page 14 July 27, 2021 As such, the proposed MEP to exceed the fence and wall height limitations is warranted based on practical difficulties due to the topography of the project site, and this finding can be made. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Zoning Overlay Control District The northern half of the project site is subject to the Natural (OC-1) and Urban Appearance (OC-3) Overlay Control Districts, as established pursuant to §17.40.040 and §17.40.060, respectively, of the RPVMC. Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) - The purpose of the OC-1 District is to maintain and enhance land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation; enhance watershed management, control storm drainage and erosion; and control the water quality of both urban run-off and natural water bodies within the City. As previously mentioned in the Major Grading Permit Finding No. 8, a biology report has been reviewed and approved by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy to ensure natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the project site is not adversely impacted by the proposed project. In addition, several conditions will be imposed to meet the intent of the OC-1 District, prior to Building Permit issuance. Specifically, as a new single-family residence with more than 500 ft2 of new or altered landscaping proposed as part of the project, the Applicant will be required to submit landscape plans for review and approval by the City’s landscape consultant to ensure it complies with the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping ordinance set forth in Chapter 15.34 of the RPVMC. Furthermore, submittal and approval of a LID plan, as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State requirements, will be imposed as a condition to address safe and adequate on-site drainage and stormwater run-off. Lastly, to further mitigate development impacts to the existing natural habitat and landscape, a condition will be imposed so that no vegetation is cleared other than that on which the residence and ancillary site improvements are proposed. As such, the proposed project, as conditioned, will generally be consistent with the performance criteria of the Natural Overlay Control District. Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3) - The purpose of the OC-3 District is to preserve, protect and maintain land and water areas, structures and other improvements which are of significant value because of their recreational, aesthetic and scenic qualities, as defined in the Visual Aspects portion of the General Plan and the Corridors Element of the Coastal Specific Plan; preserve, protect and maintain significant views and vistas from major public view corridors and public lands and waters within the City which characterize the City’s appearance as defined in the Visual Aspects portion of the General Plan and the Corridors Element of the Coastal Specific Plan; ensure that site planning, grading and landscape techniques, as well as improvement planning, design and construction will preserve, protect and enhance the visual character of the City’s predominant land forms, urban form, vegetation and other distinctive features, as identified in the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan; and preserve, protect and maintain significant views of and from slope areas within the community which characterize the City’s dominant land form appearance. As previously discussed, the proposed project will not significantly impact views from private and public properties in the immediate vicinity and will not affect designated public view corridors, viewpoints, or view sites as defined in the General Plan. As a split-story residence that will be notched into the existing slope, the proposed mass and grading complies with the grading criteria and no grading is proposed adjacent to the public right-of-way or publicly maintained areas. As previously mentioned, a LID Plan B-14 Page 15 July 27, 2021 will be required for approval to address vegetation removal and its impacts to drainage and impervious surfaces to be created. In addition, the Water Efficient Landscaping ordinance set forth in Chapter 15.34 of the Municipal Code will be applied to ensure that the proposed landscaping will be compatible with visual, climate, soil, and ecological characteristics of the City which are water efficient. Therefore, the proposed project as conditioned will generally be consistent with the performance criteria established in the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District. Given the foregoing, Mr. Haas and Ms. Won respectfully requests that this appeal be scheduled to go before the City Council and that the project be approved. Very truly yours, Jeffrey Lewis cc: Ara Mihranian (aram@rpvca.gov) Luis De Moraes (luis@envirotechno.com) Matthew Gelfand (matt@caforhomes.org) Planning Commission B-15 July 12, 2021 VIA E-MAIL ONLY Mr. Ken Rukavina krukavina@rpvca.gov Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 William W. Wynder, Esq. wwynder@awattorneys.com Aleshire & Wynder LLP 2361 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 475 El Segundo, CA 90245 Re: Case No. PLGR2019 -0025 Property Address: 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West Messrs. Rukavina and Wynder, I am litigation and land use counsel for David Haas, the project owner for a planned home at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West, Case No. PLGR2019-0025. This matter was before the Planning Commission most recently on June 22, 2021, where the application was denied on a 3-2 vote. Acting Chair Perestam reluctantly voted to deny the project expressing at the time that he did so hoping the matter would be appealed to the City Council so that the Council could provide direction to the Commission regarding application of the Municipal Code to this project. On July 13, 2021, the Planning Commission is scheduled to approve the enclosed written resolution memorializing that vote. A copy of the draft resolution is enclosed herewith. I write to address serious concerns that Mr. Haas has regarding the legitimacy of the commission’s vote of denial and the resulting litigation exposure that vote has brought on the City. I do not raise these issues lightly and I request that you provide a thoughtful and written response to these issues. The City Should Approve this Project Because there is No Substantial Evidence That There is a Public Health, Safety and Welfare Issue The geology report submitted by Mr. Haas was conditionally approved by the City’s geologist. The staff report summarized the applicable development standard for building on an extreme slope: Pursuant to 17.48.060(G) of the RPVMC, construction of new residences (including habitable and non-habitable space) on previously undeveloped, recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975, are allowed on extreme slopes provided that such construction, as conditioned, will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare, and that such structures are consistent with the permitted uses and development standards for the underlying zoning of the lots. (Staff Report, p. 5.) B-16 IJI JEFF LEWIS LAW 609 Deep Valley Dr ive. Suite 200 Ro l ling Hi lls Estates. CA 90274 Office (310) 935-4001 Jefflewis law.com Page 2 July 12, 2021 On two separate occasions, the City’s professional staff recommended approval of this project. Given the approval by the City’s geologist, staff and the above standards governing planning commission approval, my client was shocked when the Commission voted to deny the project without making any factual finding that the project would threaten public health, safety and welfare. On the issue of health, safety and welfare, the City’s engineer, Ron Dragoo in attendance at the June 22 Commission meeting opined that the slope was “definitely stable” and presented no danger. He said: I heard from a couple of speakers, they’re concerned about the factor of safety for slope stability. And I want to just note that per the report in the section I read, it has a factor of safety of 1.9. So it’s definitely stable. Even if the Commission had made such findings, to withstand judicial review, the finding would have to be supported by substantial evidence. There is no evidence in the administrative record that would support a finding that this home would threaten health, safety or welfare. In a clumsy attempt to cure this lack of evidence, the proposed resolution states that the Commission cannot find that “erecting an entire building on a slope ranging up to 80% in steepness is consistent with the intent of the Municipal Code.” (Draft Resolution, p. 5.) But the discussion of the Commission on June 22, 2021 did not include this point and, more importantly, if the City geologist found no safety issue, a planning commission’s lay opinion regarding the intent of the code cannot override the factual findings by the geologist that there is no safety issue. Some other comments of note from the June 22, 2201, Planning Commission meeting: The City’s Deputy Director of Community Development, Octavio Silva, opined: and Vice Chair, if I may ask a question in terms of if the Commission does vote to deny the project. I think it’d be helpful for staff and bringing back a resolution for denial. If we can outline or may be more specific in terms of the project denial, because you know, we'’ve got to bring that back for you guys to consider and want to make sure we get these points, right. (Emphasis added.) If I may translate the foregoing, Mr. Silva was plainly telling the commission that they had not at that point of the discussion made sufficient findings to lawfully deny this project. Director Ken Rukavina echoed Mrs. Silva’s sentiments when he said: …essentially, the city council will need to make findings that the project will threaten the public health, safety and welfare in denial and because that would be part of the findings that you will need to make… B-17 Page 3 July 12, 2021 Deputy City Attorney Lopez also urged the Commission to make findings in denying this project, but no such findings were made pertaining to health, safety and welfare. Under remarkably similar circumstances, the City of Santa Barbara, has faced liability for a similar denial. In Felkay v. City of Santa Barbara (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 30, an owner of an oceanfront lot was denied permission to build on an ocean blufftop. The planning staff and consultants had recommended to the commission approval of the development. The commission and city council overruled staff and denied the project. In ensuing litigation, the Superior Court found there was a de facto taking of the proper ty leaving only a vacant lot with passive uses possible. The landowner received a $2.4 million award in damages. There is very little daylight between Felkay and this matter. One need only substitute the words “extreme slope” for “blufftop” and the results will be the same. In addition to Felkay, the City has faced liability for takings in the Monks litigation. (See Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 263, 309.) The City’s Denial is Arbitrary Because Similar Projects on this Lot and Similar Lots have been Approved A city may not act in an arbitrary fashion in land use decisions. The Planning Commission was presented evidence of three other projects located at 10 Topsail (December 8, 2020), 48 Rockinghorse (September 8, 2020), and 6001 Palos Verdes Drive South (April 14, 2020) where the City approved an application to develop on slopes greater than 50 percent. The denial of this application is arbitrary. The “phrase arbitrary or capricious” has been defined by one court as conduct “not supported by a fair or substantial reason.” (Madonna v. County of San Luis Obispo (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 57, 62.) By approving some projects but not substantially identical projects based on the whim of one or more commissioners, the City is creating a risk of litigation to itself. Perhaps the most striking evidence of the arbitrary nature of the City’s conduct is t he fact that the City approved a more aggressive project on the exact same lot in 2008. The prior project was one more story (three instead of two) and larger (by 500 square feet) than the current project. Nothing has changed in terms of the public health, safety and welfare – except the project has been scaled back since 2008. The 2008 approval coupled with the 2021 denial demonstrates the type of “arbitrary” or “capricious” action “not supported by a fair or substantial reason.” (Madonna v. County of San Luis Obispo (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 57, 62.) The City’s Denial Violates Due Process Because the City Provided Conceptual Approval At the inception of the project, my client’s architect, Luis De Moraes met with planning staff and received conceptual approval to build this project. This approval was in line with past projects coming before the commission. The conceptual approval followed by a later denial at the commission level raises Due Process issues regarding the City’s conduct. Although a written resolution has not yet been passed, please be advised that Mr. Haas intends to appeal this matter to the City Council based on what transpired at the last Planning Commission meeting and Acting Chair Perestam’s request. I recommend that the City Attorney conduct a closed session meeting with the Planning Commission or City Council or both to discuss the Felkay and Monks decisions and the impact of denying a landowner all productive use of a piece of property without the necessary predicat e findings. B-18 Page 4 July 12, 2021 A refresher to the Commission on basic rules regarding uniform application of the law and procedures regarding timing of presentation1 would also be in order. It is our profound hope that the City makes a course correction to avoid litigation. Finally, please consider this letter to be a Public Records Act request for all communications the City, including its Attorneys and Staff, have received regarding this project and any non - privileged internal City communications regarding the same. Very truly yours, Jeffrey Lewis cc: Ara Mihranian (aram@rpvca.gov) Luis De Moraes (luis@envirotechno.com) Matthew Gelfand (matt@caforhomes.org) Planning Commission (pc@rpvca.gov) Encl. 1 At the start of the most recent hearing, there was some confusion about how much time the applicant had to speak. B-19 Enclosure B-20 01203.0005/726520.1 MEMORANDUM TO: CHAIR & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: KEN RUKAVINA, P.E., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 13, 2021 SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT (CASE NO. PLGR2019-0025) PROJECT ADDRESS: 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST LANDOWNER: DAVID HASS APPLICANT: LUIS DE MORAES Project Planner: Jaehee Yoon, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2021-__; denying, without prejudice, a Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit to construct a new 4,350 ft 2 (garage included) split-story residence and ancillary site improvements with 1,049 yd 3 of associated grading on a vacant lot. DISCUSSION On March 9, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the requested Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit applications to allow the Applicant and staff an opportunity to address concerns related to Neighborhood Compatibility, grading, privacy, site drainage, potential wildlife habitat, and foliage analysis. On June 22, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Applicant’s revised plans and additional information for the requested applications. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission further discussed the potential impacts and concerns related to drainage, privacy, slope stability, and grading on extreme slope. Based on concerns specific to the proposed grading that will be conducted entirely on extreme slope, a motion to deny the application was passed on a 3-2 vote, with Commissioners Saadatnejadi and Santarosa dissenting. As a result, the Planning Commission directed staff to bring back a resolution memorializing the denial. 1B-21 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JULY 13, 2021 01203.0005/726520.1 If the language in the attached draft Planning Commission resolution does not reflect the consensus of the Planning Commission’s basis for denial, the Planning Commission may clarify the resolution by reading into the record language that more accurately reflects the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the proposed project. A complete project background, prior to this meeting date, is available for review as part of the June 22, 2021 Planning Commission staff report (Click here). ATTACHMENT • Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-__ 2B-22 01203.0005/727673.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2021-__ Page 1 of 4 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A SITE PLAN REVIEW, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,350 FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED) SPLIT-STORY RESIDENCE AND ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS WITH 1,049 YD3 OF ASSOCIATED GRADING ON A VACANT LOT AT 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (CASE NO. PLGR2019-0025). WHEREAS, on October 3, 2019, Luis De Moraes, on behalf of property owner David Hass (collectively, “Applicant”) submitted Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit applications, requesting approval to construct a new residence and ancillary site improvements with associated grading on a vacant lot located at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019, staff completed an initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans. The Applicant submitted additional information on several occasions, including revisions to the plan and the silhouette to address concerns raised by the neighboring properties, and on January 8, 2021, staff deemed the application complete for processing, setting the action deadline to March 9, 2021; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2020, 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 15-day time period to submit comments; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2021, a courtesy notice was sent out to all property owners within a 500-foot radius from the project site to extend the commenting period for an additional 15 days as the project silhouette required adjustments to re pair the posts and flags due to adverse weather conditions during the original commenting period; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2021, a subsequent notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and mailed to all property owners within a 500 -foot radius from the project site as staff became aware of additional grading noted on the geology report that was inadvertently missing from the proposed grading plans that will result in over 1,000 yd3 of associated grading, which requires review by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time the application was continued to a date uncertain, to provide an opportunity for the Applicant and staff to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission related to Neighborhood Compatibility, privacy, grading, drainage, potential wildlife habitat, and foliage analysis; and 3B-23 01203.0005/727673.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2021-__ Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, on June 3, 2021, a public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, providing a 15-day time period to submit comments and concerns in relation to the revised plans; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to reconsider the proposed application, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. 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(a) (new construction of a single-family residence) of the CEQA Guidelines: the project involves the construction of a single-family residence in the RS-4 zoning district, which is a residential zone; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project involves the construction of a new 4,350 ft2 (garage included) split-story residence and ancillary site improvements with 1,049 yd3 of associated grading on a vacant lot. Section 2: The Planning Commission is required to make findin gs for the Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit to construct a new 4,350 ft2 single-family residence and ancillary site improvements with 1,049 yd3 of associated grading. The Planning Commission finds that the requested entitlements are not warranted as the extent of proposed grading on an extreme slope (>35%), which includes slopes over 50% steepness, to accommodate construction of a new residence is excessive and beyond what is necessary to reasonably develop the project site. While §17.48.060(G) and §17.76.040(E)(9)(a) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) allows the construction of new residences on extreme slopes under certain conditions subject to the Planning Commission’s discretion, the Planning Commission finds that a project such as this one, that would be built entirely on an extreme slope, does not comply with the original intent of the code. More specifically, while subsection (E)(10) of Section 17.76.040 of the RPV Municipal Code allows for a Grading Permit to be approved for development in excess of the limits set forth in subsection (E)(9) (which provides that “[g]rading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35 percent shall be allowed on recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975 or if within Eastview, existing as of January 5, 1983, which are not currently zoned open space/hazard, if the director or planning commission finds that such 4B-24 01203.0005/727673.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2021-__ Page 3 of 4 grading, as conditioned, will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare”), the Planning Commission does not find that erecting an entire building on a slope ranging up to 80% in steepness is consistent with the intent of the Municipal Code. Furthermore, the Planning Commission cannot affirmatively make the following Major Grading Permit findings set forth in §17.76.040(E) below: (1) The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) of this title. (9)(d) No fill or cut shall be permitted on a slope exceeding 50 percent gradient, unless the grading is on a 67 percent slope, allowed pursuant to subsection (E)(9)(f) of this section.1 Next, the Planning Commission cannot make the findings at Section 17.76.040(E)(10) including subsection (E)(10)(d) which requires that the Planning Commission find that departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) of this section will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property . To the contrary the Planning Commission has found that the proposed project would be detrimental to the public safety or other properties. The scope of work under the Major Grading Permit is closely related to the Site Plan Review and Minor Exception Permit. As the Planning Commission is unable to affirmatively make all the necessary findings for the Major Grading Permit, the Site Plan Review and Minor Exception Permit findings cannot be supported without approving the proposed project as a whole, despite the Planning Commission not taking exception to issues related to privacy, bulk and mass, drainage, and preservation of potential habitat. Section 3: 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, July 29, 2021. A $3,100.00 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, July 29, 2021. Section 4: 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 1 17.76.040(E)(9)(f) relates to driveways and is therefore inapplicable. 5B-25 01203.0005/727673.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2021-__ Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of July 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: Stephen Perestam Chair of the Planning Commission Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission 6B-26 MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL MATT@CAFORHOMES.ORG TEL: (213) 739-8206 July 9, 2021 VIA EMAIL Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Email: stephen.perestam@rpvca.gov; david.chura@rpvca.gov; julie.hamill@rpvca.gov; william.james@rpvca.gov; gordon.leon@rpvca.gov; lan.saadatnejadi@rpvca.gov; ron.santarosa@rpvca.gov; pc@rpvca.gov; planning@rpvca.gov RE: 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West, PLGR2019-0025 To the Planning Commission: Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing regarding the 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West Project, which will be considered at your July 13, 2021 meeting. The City’s approval of the Project is governed by the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5. If you deny the Project on the basis identified in the proposed findings prepared by staff, the denial will violate the Act, exposing the City to the serious risk of litigation. If we or another non-profit organization, or the applicant, is forced to litigate and prevails, the City will be required to repay our or their attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(ii). This letter first summarizes the Act and then explains why the proposed findings of denial would, if adopted, violate the Act. For the purposes of Government Code Section 65589.5(k)(2), this letter constitutes our written comments submitted in connection with the project.1 The Housing Accountability Act The Housing Accountability Act generally requires the City to approve a housing development project unless the project fails to comply with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1). To count as “objective,” a standard must “involve[e] no personal or subjective judgment by a public official 1 We write here on our own behalf. To date, we have had no contact with the applicants or any of their representatives. This letter is based on information we learned from the public record. B-27 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP 525 S. Virgil Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 July 9, 2021 Page 2 and be[] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). In making this determination, the City must approve the project if the evidence “would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project met the relevant standard. Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4). The City is subject to strict timing requirements under the Act. If the City desires to find that a project is inconsistent with any of its land use standards, it must issue written findings to that effect within 30 days after the application to develop the project is determined to be complete. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A). If the City fails to do so, the project is deemed consistent with those standards. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B). If the City determines that a project is consistent with its objective standards, or a project is deemed consistent with such standards, but the City nevertheless proposes to reject it, it must make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” meaning that the project would have “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A); see Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i)(II). Once again, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). Even if the City identifies legally sufficient health and safety concerns about a project, it may only reject the project if “[t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact . . . other than the disapproval of the housing development project . . . .” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B). Thus, before rejecting a project, the City must consider all reasonable measures that could be used to mitigate the impact at issue. These provisions apply to the full range of housing types. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2); see Honchariw v. Cty. of Stanislaus, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1074-76 (2011) (applying act to market- rate single-family development). And the Legislature has directed that the Act be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L). When a locality rejects or downsizes a housing development project without complying with the rules described above, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last few years in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k). A non-profit organization can sue without the involvement or approval of the project applicant, to protect the public’s interest in the development of new housing. A locality that is sued to enforce Section 65589.5 must prepare the administrative record itself, at its own expense, within 30 days after service of the petition. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). And if an B-28525 S. Virgil Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP July 9, 2021 Page 3 enforcement lawsuit brought by a non-profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i). In recent years, there have been a number of successful lawsuits to enforce these rules:  In Honchariw, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, the Court of Appeal vacated the County of Stanislaus’s denial of an application to subdivide a parcel into eight lots for the development of market-rate housing. The court held that the county did not identify any objective standards that the proposed subdivision would not meet, and therefore violated the Housing Accountability Act in denying the application.  In Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV300733, the court determined that Los Gatos had improperly denied a subdivision application based on subjective factors. The court found that the factors cited by the town, such as the quality of the site design, the unit mix, and the anticipated cost of the units, were not objective because they did not refer to specific, mandatory criteria to which the applicant could conform.  San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation v. Berkeley City Council , Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG16834448, was the final in a series of cases relating to Berkeley’s denial of an application to build three single family homes and its pretextual denial of a demolition permit to enable the project. The Court ordered the city to approve the project and to pay $44,000 in attorneys’ fees.  In 40 Main Street Offices v. City of Los Altos, Santa Clara County Superior Court Consolidated Case Nos. 19CV349845 & 19CV350422, the court determined that the City violated the Housing Accountability Act, among other state housing laws, by failing to identify objective land use criteria to justify denying a mixed-use residential and commercial project. The City was ultimately forced to pay approximately $1 million in delay compensation and attorneys’ fees in the case. In other cases, localities have settled lawsuits by agreeing to approve the subject projects and pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses. Application of the Act to the Project We have reviewed the proposed findings of denial drafted by staff. The proposed findings cannot satisfy either prong of the Act. As to the objective standards prong, the findings fail to meet the requirements of the Act for at least four reasons: First, because the application to develop the Project was deemed complete on January 8, 2021, the City was required to identify any inconsistent standards under the Act by February 7, 2021. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A). Although the applicant later agreed to extend the City’s deadline under the Permit Streamlining Act, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the applicant extended the City’s deadline under the Housing Accountability Act or excused the City’s B-29525 S. Virgil Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP July 9, 2021 Page 4 failure to identify inconsistent standards within 30 days. Because the City appears to have failed to timely identify inconsistent standards, the project is deemed consistent with those standards as a matter of law. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B). Second, because staff previously determined that the Project meets the requirements of Municipal Code Section 17.76.040(E)(10), you cannot determine otherwise unless you determine that no reasonable person could agree with staff’s assessment. Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4). You cannot do so, because staff’s determination was well-supported and reasonable. Third, the proposed approach for assessing the slope of this site is unreasonable. The overall slope of the portion of the site to be developed does not appear to exceed 50%, so the Project is not subject to Municipal Code Section 17.76.040(E)(9)(d). It is not reasonable to assess slope by dividing the parcel into smaller parts and assessing the slope in those smaller parts. By shifting the frame of view smaller, it will always be possible to find steeper slopes within more gentle ones; this is a version of the well-known coastline paradox. Fourth, even if you could validly determine that the Project violates Section 17.76.040(E)(9)(d) or fails to meet the requirements of Section 17.76.040(E)(10), those standards are not objective because reasonable minds can differ on their application to this Project, as indicated by the dissents from staff and from two members of the Planning Commission. To qualify as objective, a standard must involve “no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and be[] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). As to the health and safety prong, the findings of denial do not even attempt to identify a valid health and safety concern that would meet the Act’s standards. But, for avoidance of doubt, the slope-related concerns do not come anywhere near qualifying as “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact[s], based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete,” nor can the City find that there is “no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid” the impacts. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(j). Accordingly, if you adopt the proposed findings, your decision will violate the Act. Sincerely, Matthew Gelfand cc: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Ken Rukavina, Comm. Dev. Director (by email to krukavina@rpvca.gov) Jaehee Yoon, Senior Planner (by email to jyoon@rpvca.gov) William W. Wynder, Esq., City Attorney (by email to wwynder@awattorneys.com) Christy Marie Lopez, Esq., Atty. to the Comm. (by email to clopez@awattorneys.com) B-30525 S. Virgil Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP Jul 13, 2021 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Proposal to deny a housing development at 30514 Palos Verdes Drive West Dear Planning Commission, and City Attorney, The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) submits this letter to inform the Planning Commission that they have an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed housing development at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West. The Housing Accountability Act, Gov. Code Section 65589.5, requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. The proposed findings for denial of the project do not even attempt to make these required findings, so the Commission's denial on these grounds would be prohibited by state law. As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will bring increased tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, decarbonization in the face of the climate crisis, but most importantly it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness or carbon-heavy car commutes. In order to combat this shortage, the Housing Accountability Act makes a simple request of city ocials: approve housing where your own regulations allow for it, unless there is a serious and documented threat to public health and safety. We ask the Commission to abide by this requirement in its decision on this housing development. Generalized neighbor opposition, or subjective concerns about slope or drainage are not sucient to legally justify the denial of a housing development. CaRLA is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CaRLA at www.carlaef.org. Sincerely, B-31 Dylan Casey Executive Director California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - hi@carlaef.org 2044 Franklin St, Oakland, CA 94612 B-32 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WESTRANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA 90275WON-HAAS RESIDENCEMR. LUIS DE MORAES, AIA VOICE: (310) 377-7873PROJECT INFORMATIONR-1OCCUPANCY:LEGAL DESCRIPTION:TYPE:ADDRESS:ARCHITECT:ZONE:CONSTRUCTION PROJECT V-NRS-4CONTACT: OWNER:EMAIL: luis@envirotechno.comSHEET INDEXPROJECT DESCRIPTIONWON-HAAS RESIDENCE30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WESTRANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA 90275ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INCORPORATED13101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD #404LOS ANGELES, CA 9006630504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WESTRANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA 90275GRADING VOLUMESEARTH QUANTITIES:CUT = 798 CU. YDS.FILL = 251 CU. YDS.EXPORT = 547 CU. YDSIMPORT = 0.00 CU. YDSNEW 3,821 SQ.FT. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITHATTACHED 529 SQ.FT. 2 CAR GARAGE, NEW DRIVEWAY ADDITIONAND HARDSCAPE AREAS, AC UNITS & SKYLIGHTS PER PLANAREA CALCULATIONAREA TABULATION:LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION: EXISTING EASEMENT AREA: **331 SQ.FT. (3.17%)NEW DRIVEWAY AREA:1,185 SQ.FT. (11.33%)NEW HARDSCAPE AREA: 428 SQ.FT. (4.09%)TOTAL DRIVEWAY AREA:1,944 SQ.FT. (18.59%)**EASEMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA EXCLUSION: **-331 SQ.FT. (-3.17%)TOTAL HARDSCAPE COVERAGE AREA: 1,613 SQ.FT. (15.42%)TOTAL HARDSCAPE COVERAGE AREA: 1,613 SQ.FT. (15.42%)BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA: 3,382 SQ.FT. (32.34%)TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AREA: 4,955 SQ.FT. (47.76%)ENTRY LEVEL AREA: 1,372 SQ.FT.UPPER LEVEL AREA: 2,449 SQ.FT.TOTAL HABITABLE AREA: 3,821 SQ.FT.GARAGE AREA: 529 SQ.FT.TOTAL GROSS AREA: 4,350 SQ.FT.PORTION OF LOT 79TRACT NO. 23943M.B. 649-43-47PER PROGRESSIVE TITLE REPORT NO. PR0612201**331 SQ.FT. OF TOTAL SETTLEMENT EASEMENT AREA OF 628 SQ.FT.IS COUNTED AND EXCLUDED IN LOT COVERAGETOTAL LOT AREA: 13,350 SQ.FT."POLE" AREA: 2,893 SQ.FT.LOT AREA USED FOR CALCULATIONS: 13,350-2,893 = 10,457 SQ.FT.SHEETDESCRIPTIONCS-1 COVER SHEETCS-2 AREA CALCULATION SHEETCS-3 AREA CALCULATION SHEET1SURVEYC-1 SITE PLANC-2 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANC-3 SECTIONSA-1.0 SITE PLANA-3.0 ENTRY LEVEL PLANA-3.1 UPPER LEVEL PLANA-6.0 ROOF PLANA-7.0 ELEVATIONSA-7.1 ELEVATIONSA-8.0 SECTIONSA-8.1 SECTIONSA-8.2 SECTIONSA-8.3 SECTIONSAIN:7582-011-028COVER SHEET CS-1JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-1Drawings and specificalians as instruments of service ore and shall remain lhe properly of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by \he client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the prajecl for which lhey were prepared, and nol for lhe cons\ruclion of any other projects, Any use ar reproduction af this drawing in whale or par\ by any means whatsoe\/er is slriclly prohibited except \ll'ith specific wril\en consent of En\/iroTechno Architecture. PROJECT TITLE: CLIENT NAME: (129)(128)UPUPUP(133)(134)(122 ) (123 ) (124 ) (125 ) (126 ) (127 )(146)UP(153) (153) (146) (152) (151) (150) (149) (148) (147)DEN/GUEST AREAHALLBEDROOMBEDROOMFOYERPORCHELEVCRAWL SPACEHALL(2) CAR GARAGEPORCHLINENSHOPUPUPUPDECK20'-0 "BATHBATHPLANTER132.43154.79152.27121.95152.35157.14125130130145150155160130135140145150FD 2" I.P.0.15' NW'LY OF CORNERFCORNER150155115150140125120SET - B A C K L I N E SET-BACK LINESET-BACK LINESET-BACK LINESET-BACK LINES E T - B A C K L I N E SET-BACK LINESET - B A C K L I N E 1,372529Nentry level area calculationSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"108MICRO.DWOVENKITCHENFAMILY AREADINING AREAOPENLAUNDRYPOWDERBEDROOM/OFFICEELEVATORHALLW.I.C.MASTER BATHMASTER BEDROOMBALCONYDISPLAYTOILETTUBSHOWERMAKE-UPSEATHISHERSSHOWERDWBROOM/VACCUMPANTRYDNGASFPGASFPWDREF.FZ.UP(146)UPUP(153) (153) (146) (152) (151) (150) (149) (148) (147) SET - B A C K L I N E SET-BACK LINESET-BACK LINESET-BACK LINESET-BACK LINES E T - B A C K L I N E SET-BACK LINESET - B A C K L I N E DNOUTDOOR PATIO142.92 (F.F.E.)143.00(F.F.E.)138.92(F.F.E.)DN141.00(F.F.E.)2% MIN. SLOPE 142.92(F.F.E.)132.43154.79152.27152.35157.145155160130135140145150FD 2" I.P.0.15' NW'LY OF CORNERFD 2" I.P. 0.25' W'LY OFCORNER1501551501402,695-246= 2,449 SQ.FT.-246NUPPER LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONSSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"(129)(128)(111)(112)(116)(133)(134)(122 ) (123 ) (124 ) (125 ) (126 ) (127 )(146)(153) (153) (146) (152) (151) (150) (149) (148) (147)NE AR E S T PU B L IC TR AN S POR T A T ION S TO P A P PRO X IM A T E L Y . 5MI L E S AW A Y N E AR TH E IN T ER S E T ION O F P VDRI V E W E S T ANDHAW THORN E B L VD .CONC.CONC.GARAGERESIDENCERESIDENCECONC.20'FD 2" I.P. FD 1" I.P. SET L&T R C E 3 0 8 2 6 SET L&T R C E 3 0 8 2 6 ON PROP E R T Y C O R N E R ON PROP E R T Y C O R N E R CURB L IN ECA TCH B A S IN A.C . SWA LE N 79°1 4' 3 1 " E 174.2 8' N 57°53'13"E10.00'L=17 . 3 4'R=3 71 0 . 0 0 ' 23.23'102.95111.35100.86100.00100.30 TX99.64 FL99.47 FL100.14 TX105.04106.45102.57109.55162.31160.03154.13132.43118.86111.12109.54108.63107.84108.89110.28159.54154.79163.61152.27102.24100.85109.182*2 PIL109.04108.91108.69106.22104.92103.18103.46100.64 TCELEC BOXCTV99.98GRATE99.23TEL MH102.83103.83103.87104.11105.46107.95108.92109.17109.56108.95108.54104.40109.62110.06112.56108.17107.41111.35106.89110.05110.03110.2118"PINE18"TREE115.82115.78114.3118"PALM18"TREE119.66121.51121.47119.4212"TREE2*2 PIL121.66121.70121.62122.11122.19121.95122.20122.14111.593"PINE6"CYP113.04109.23109.11108.92127.60110.27109.49152.35161.00157.141101 1 0 1 1 0 110110115115120120 125130130135135140140145145150155160115120125130135140145150155160FD 2" I.P.0.15' NW'LY OF CORNERFD 2" I.P. 0.25' W'LY OFCORNERSET L&T RCE 30826 ONPROPERTY CORNERSET L&T RCE 30826 ONPROPERTY CORNERSET L&T RCE 30826 ONPROPERTY CORNERSET 2X2 STAKE &TAG RCE 30826 ONPROPERTY CORNERSET L&T RCE30826 ONPROPERTYCORNER130135150155115110150145140125120(121)(120)(115)(110)(105)(119)(118)(117)(116)(114)(113)(112)(111)(109)(108)(107)(106)(104 ) ( 1 0 3 ) ( 1 0 2 ) ( 1 0 1 )1,1852,612209LOT AREA CALCULATIONSSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"N433,382**331169TOTAL EASEMENTAREA: 628 SQ.FT.331 SQ.FT. EASEMENT AREAEXCLUDED FROM TOTAL7AREA CALCULATIONAREA TABULATION:LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION: EXISTING EASEMENT AREA: **331 SQ.FT. (3.17%)NEW DRIVEWAY AREA:1,185 SQ.FT. (11.33%)NEW HARDSCAPE AREA: 428 SQ.FT. (4.09%)TOTAL DRIVEWAY AREA:1,944 SQ.FT. (18.59%)**EASEMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA EXCLUSION: **-331 SQ.FT. (-3.17%)TOTAL HARDSCAPE COVERAGE AREA: 1,613 SQ.FT. (15.42%)TOTAL HARDSCAPE COVERAGE AREA: 1,613 SQ.FT. (15.42%)BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA: 3,382 SQ.FT. (32.34%)TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AREA: 4,955 SQ.FT. (47.76%)ENTRY LEVEL AREA: 1,372 SQ.FT.UPPER LEVEL AREA: 2,449 SQ.FT.TOTAL HABITABLE AREA: 3,821 SQ.FT.GARAGE AREA: 529 SQ.FT.TOTAL GROSS AREA: 4,350 SQ.FT.ENTRYLEVEL AREAGARAGEAREAUPPERLEVEL AREAEXISTINGDRIVEWAY AREANEW DRIVEWAYAREAHARDSCAPEAREABUILDINGFOOTPRINTLEGEND**331 SQ.FT. OF TOTAL SETTLEMENT EASEMENT AREA OF 628 SQ.FT. IS COUNTEDAND EXCLUDED IN LOT COVERAGEEXISTINGDRIVEWAY AREACOUNTED INHARDSCAPE CALCSUPPER LEVELPATIO/BALCONYAREATOTAL LOT AREA: 13,350 SQ.FT."POLE" AREA: 2,893 SQ.FT.LOT AREA USED FOR CALCULATIONS: 13,350-2,893 = 10,457 SQ.FT.AREA CALCULATIONSCS-2JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-2Drawings and specifications ' os instruments of service are and shall remoin the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the dient may be utilized only ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ for his use and for occupying !he projed for Which they Were prepared, ond no! for th ~ conslrudion of any other projects. ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ '/ / . . ' / / // _,., ~ ' / / ... / ~! ' ~ 777J77771;; 'i, 'i, I, 1/, 1/, / l.1,· / 11,· / I, 11,· / 1/, 1/, ,. ' ,, ' '"' ' ' ., ' ., , ,, ' ,·, 1-'1 , ' " ' , ,., , , 1,-1 ,, , , , , ,., , ' ,, , , i'r\', ', n, 'p \-1, z ~ w "· ::, e 0 "· ' , \:~\ , , ,, , ', \-~. ,,, ', ,i ,, \~\ ' ' \I\ 1:~I \,, '' • ! ' . '' ' , li , ' I~~ ' 1-'i Any use or repradudian af this drawing in whole or part by . ) \ i \ \. --------/ , ,'/ 1j;,1,!>·•, ! (·' \'• ' i1/ / ; ,;, / i.'i 1/' " ! --!_ ! . / -:--../ j' ,-L.,i ', ,,,,,{];. .. -~' }/'!-,: :~}: .--.., .. -,,: , ; / ..... ·--- 1 / .' ;, . ·--,: .. any means whatsoever is stridly prohibited • ;'-, ;/-. __ _ /,;'.!.;./~'/!: .~, except \ll'ith specific Written consent of EnviroTechno Archiledure . ~ , i,'.)[jj} ,·i,~\?:-:t-, ,,,,'~ ,~ ' j 'C--L ! .. ·-,,..,/ ; / , ' ,. ' j _..1l ~e· ! • ' :ry ' ' ,' 1 ,,_____ ~ //ii///i////Ji///lil/i //;i '' '-~-'' '' ,n . ' ' ,. '' ,,; ;-.. , , ,,, </~! /! ,~' ' .'-/' Cf _ _, '! '! ,a 1 ~ ~ ~ ' ' • ½ . 'i, 1/ 1 /. ,.,.,./ _\, -· /·// \ ' ' ; ;/_. -,f·// i/---!/ 1/ 11 111 //////. 111111;1 j//l l //f ///f///11///4 I ·-!f, \t ·,;,,: '-;''l ~ 'i, 1/ 1/~ 1/ ---::::o ::::::,-~- . 7 . . . . . ,_,_ .. ,------- -· . . ,-••--------·-------· . , ,, .. _,.---,~ , .. , • "'--""' .Li ,S _,_,A' . ,. . • .. --. . -·----·---· --. . . . " . . . . ... • .. . . • ---<' --,-------~c:."-.-c-.-~. ---,. . . LJ ' . '· " . . ... . . --= -=" . . . . ,,,.,. . . • . . r; .. .. d '. tl L L " .. ..,.L .CL L . .... '.. • ,o<" - ---.. --;,: . . • "I' I 'II , .. LLLlc°LiL : . u :_u .;~t_ C: ~; I< _ /, ---'· 1-,,tjif 1 • . ' . _. . , l" \ . L ~L' ~ k ,": t..'1 I :C: k ;:_,: j :'if '! ' ,) f: tr: ·: F ! ,, 1 ·i " ,SJ:; ~h c:c ' 'Lt:::s,_i:::_:tl:. _s:;-h. ,, -. P,t¥r:S ~ ,~ttr 1 tt~kt~L t~~S L[fEJ ; t :t.,~Wt tt}~t~1bJ1bs~Ll[l . "',J ~b fr-Llt tdJ: r !:f11• . '· •' '• '. ·'• -:: :: :ii - \· .... . . ·. ,.. .. ·\ ,.·:·-'.'..·: -,. -·;·, ... '•--. ·:~ .. ···-A {!) . / ) > l/,"'c<> \ • • ~ ---_--· _.-~::~ :.:_;;:;:·=-_:.-~--d" -~ .. -..... --.· ·1 •, ~-.-:_· :-;-.· ;-,·-•. . ' ,: --:;: .•, . .. . £.• ":: •:-· ... ••,-··~ I\ ,, ,L'! f t::L L "" t [ 1 1 :-'.. I_,,; ~ ,~ p: L/ c.L G &b :;, 'L'c_; i! I, ! : . ' I • • " . • ' . . -. ; ; . L [ Lt l'.C "-L . . i=LJ,. G " " "."L i,, Lt.!l'L u "·r,: "f h"" • t..'' J , ,, i--, .. , . ' " ~ 1 , , , , _ __ _ , _ ' .. , .. :. · u ;:. 1 •L ·• :: Jc L:t-'!'S L"' UC le S tlt'½t; l" . - -. -· L . -· . . ''·"""' ••.. ' . " . ,'-' )' L.A ,,.tr:· LJ;.;l ."' . . . • .. , .. , •. ' ... , . . -~-:..---oo·(l\ ..-1.0~,'!J---· ~~~;.c.',J;~,, ~,·' ·~ --~ / , 'a• ' ·~-~ . ~ .... . ' .•. ·.,..; ' ... ~-~-I/\ ' . ' 1 11 1 1/7 ;••· "• .. ·•, • . -•,, ~,:--·.< ~· · .. l ·_. ,· -• .. ~ •. --~ ,;•: .. . ', . , .. ~ ':l I I L 'I I i \ I )\ ,. ' ' l\ 11 . '\'· \I'\ 1\\ ·, '' \ '. . I\:, \',\\I ,,, ,:,1 \\ \\ \ 71 / r ' ' '/ ., f I r 'I 'I I\ I I I ',L\ ', I ' ' ' \-1-----'- \ '\, I \ '\ \\ 1. 'I " I ' ' \ \ \ I \ \, I '\ \ 1\1 \.\ . \ \\, \ \\\ " ' ,, ' ' '+ ----,---'---1-----"c -c= - ' \ _\ --\ ' -,\ ', \,\ t j,. ' ' \ " ~ \ ·, ' '1 ~\ I \,;:<',\ \/ ~ \ I\', I ·(_, \ '._~•-='· ' ' \ _ _!---'·· ,~• r· ··. , I \ ,: )_/ -/f.5P~ I ,' ' '' '' // ,~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~, I . ' ,' I / ' ,1 _I I ~' . ! ·-../ I " ' __;.r \ \ ;g Y' :j,</,'."L I j I t I/ ,' z ,, ~ ';:' "' o ' "' ~ i f i Ii 1, f _I 7/17/7 . 17/1 I I 'l I, ·,;. I •. ,4 ·,., ·.,:. " \JJ»,,;»1;:v, I, (,.J-~--·~\t:t'•,·\---l--J,- \ •,,.,,.,< \ . '_;;.-- 1 '• .. ~··._.;r'. ,-':> -,--\ L L L L L L L L ' --- ,' / // ',! ·1 1/, I, ' ' '~ -------- 0 ' ' 'f /! " '' • /i /,, '' // , j i ' /, .___, _.---..,.:_ ' . ,a . .._/ !• T~ : i i :·,:_=~:-:/~;--./. , . --~ -· ; /t?/:;::z\_ ··-o-' .: ,Tp, ,=-, , ""'--. 'i<Z! / / < ]!<>·,. ---' ·' ~/,;.,f,,,,,,, -, .•. I : ~ ~:' , / / ·i,~i7'f-i};,/ i ·--,,:: ->;. __ _ ~ ~ /J:;;:;."_;.-i i:_'.-L.//i//7_,,:,'---/ / ,.>---_---/:-,._"_ 1/11/ I / ,I f'/:::;:f Jf:1 ~ /! //"J/y ---.~ './ ,,, ' .. ' ,,., .. / ' ' ·"-'"""" ' ' ' ' ,, . ' ' 1· "· . ; ' /~,/ ./..L.-/ '/ ....;.,:___ /:' / i-; ' ;"+-<:·--. .;__ / , ', i .-i-fi/ L. ii--/...!.' / j / :/ / •ti>--~:----_,_ ._,., / "'!t-,,.../ , 1 iii -f • .;; ___ /// /:; :' r·-J• __ ; / I fil½ .,~/ .'0 /001 -, /1 :tS/t ';m !i: .. .1 / / !! / . : ·'·. ,.,--:~:,t//L/ /, ~I '" "' ! / . //··• . , • , ; ! I ! ; I , -~-' I ; , i i i , ' , . ' , / .' / ; / ,i ,' i -; ---' ~ ~ ---/-...:..· ' -;...;._ ''/ ! I 1 1J ,I~ ,1 I ;[ I 11 j J ! , I I i i1/ i f i/ '' " I!/ '' /1/ ' ' ' ;~ , 1 11 I - ' " / i " '' I ' , I ' ' / '' "'-.' //' I I ., ' ! I I I I r, ' I /, ' '' : 1~'.! \ c'--- .. , ' .. ._••· ·. /"""{ I ,· : \ / ' ,' ', ! -~': '·· .. ' ' /',.. .. /"-1 ·;1 . ~.\: ' i .\ \ ·' ., "i ~- ,. ' t \ .. . ,.· '. ,.-,. . .•· ' . . ,... .. . ~ \_ .,·' -'l ~ I I.&" v\\ ·,,:, " I , "-.. <I . /, / ··1 '··.·· .... · 1// /. J I .t ~.~' //1 '/1 /I . I 1/1(, \ \ \ \ \ I°, .. '' ,. 1.J/1 I.( I I ' . \I " I \, ' \\\ I \ I \ 1\ I \<\ '\ '' ' 1,1 '· ' \' _.,,., • ., 0 .• ~ • _., _,. . ~ . '. ,, • ~ 1' •• \ • \ \ • ' -~~->©: "'· . •• .,<.r>~l •.I ~-~-\ .. •. •O . ' .-I '~·t \ •/' ~v •·0' \' ' ' ,' . • :o:\' ··•; ' . . . .>t\ -.• I •. o •-. .-•• , . . ,, I \ \ \ \\ v~, • •, PROJECT llTLE: ' ' ' \. . ' ' ','. \ ,. ,\ 1.\ _v,-- \11 j' I I' . . i ,' I: : : / ~! ' ' :' I I . C . ' ' / '/ / ,' ; I . : , , I : ,I I / ' / / , ' I , .' / / ,' ,' ' j 1 I I: ' ' : I I 11 ' ,I \-'\ l'l , I . ' ~I , ]J7 \., 11 . ·. ·. •, . .,__.-' ~ ...r·. .. •• .. ;.,;?'-\ ~\' ,, ..-\_;,.' 1· , .. _.-, ~, I )>•----___..-<· \ \ \ \ \ \ / I \ 1 \ , _,-.!):' ,.• I ----' ,. ' ',,. ',, ,, _.-r· ' \ ,\' \C. \ \ \ ' -, '. -, ·, \ \ \_ __ \ __ ;I._::~-:_:---:-_ . -;~·:--_--~",---"', _/ __ _.. ' ' I . .-• , I ~ ,,, ·l;J, / --'7ir:J;",\ L. / o' \ ' , ' ' / <) CLIENT NAME: 1( '.-~:s, /~ >, \>: ·._;;..---- ' ' ' 1/ ' ' I >( ± <.n / w Ji :~ ·~ 2: ' ~, W ' ! '/;I ' I ' I " \ --- "' ·•·, '/ 1/ .. 1· 'l 1A /J I Ii I' Ll Ll -------- "' I I -------- ,1 .IJ --._,.:' ' ~ ,_ ,, --1_-.;~ ~/--.;_ ' , /: i ,·,--~-------\. ·-' ,_ -/,'" ',,.,, ... ,-----f:../-/J,./ / / / / ~r ,_,_,' '-!-,;,J, '. .. 7""/ '/.i / /-1-.. / t:.,:_---f-.. /-__ -i~ /-t..,j___,, it,;~---"--,_-, , .' ' --~,,-- ' ~', --····· ........ "~··· .... ·· ......... ·~ --··... " ·"· ~ " 0 ---" ' ---,,.;._j • ! . .,.___ '::JJ:! • ! ~ ···1L,,'ir k 1;/j , .. ...,_ ------- ~!'IJ ", ",:,,, ,,.J "", ' "" " " ij ,,·· ... " "" / .. ' ','' "" """" " " " " """' ',, i ;~/ ,/·'-'.'/ -~ IT +;-~;:;--: . ·' ' ··. ,.·:·-:> [ r-,-- .'/,' ;J[J' Jl_i• 'i. ; ; , '~',, <,J;-:-'-- /' ' ·. " ~ ~ "" '" --,~." ·····"'··~,,: /--, '. , -!-....,_ ; , ' , -J..J.. -~----../...,/ !._ ! 1 / I ,, --..., ..J..J c,,.c_,,,½~ __ -,J.j i ; ,-,:_ ·--., _ _,,_ ' ,, j, ' ', ', .;, " " """ lfll I ' 1'7!1 l:i.Jf1 , ~ ' ' n ', '·. ·., '· " ' --' ,··. ·~ · .. ----... '·,. ',, ",i;]JI ' """-- ' ' ' ' ' ' ",, 't " ' ' -" ) ', ' ' " ' ', ' ', ' "' ' :c,___ ··:c,___ '-.-~·1 / ' I, .l ', ' " ,7 ~ ' "C L,, ' -J-' ,',', "'----'"c: J -,1· 'l I ! - ' j ' ' ' r-·· ··... "" . ,iil I ', ,, ,, I',· ...... "s'\,· 't·· ' I ' L .. r' '' ' ' ' ""' ,A"<"'°,+> \ .. -,--... I / ' . ~/ : ' - I I I I I I I L ",, ' ', ' ', ',"" "" '" "" " "" "" "" "" " " " r ,,, ,, , ,, ,, ", 'I ", ', ' ', ', ' ' ', "' "",·· .. ' " "' ·"\· ........ ',',," a , ,, ,, :,,,, I ", ,, , , 'N'i', ... ~:::, , ·,,,,,,,,, I , ,, ' r,', ' ',',,, ', ', ", "" ' ', ' ', ' ', '' ', ''l --. , , :"" . --' " 1,l:,<--'," ",,,, l ., ., ' 1-..,,.,.,:., ! \;-.- ' ' '. ,, ,, ' ' ' ! >_- i ,I ' >_-I $ I L I I I I I I I J ' ' ' . ,. \ \ >;__,,-- ' \ ' ~ , ..... //'• \ . .,__.-\. ~ \, >/>°',--\ \ \ __.l..' 1:----"' \ ,. . , \ , .. ' \.:,,.< ' ' ' Y .'' \...-< ...r' . ' \ ,,, G-.'", \ \ ., \ / I , ' ~ ___..-r--. \ ,-"? / / ,, ' ' ,,,,,/,,, ·, ' ,",\ / •.-··L . , . ·. \ ,\ ,,.>'::" . . ! ,,s" ;.is ·.:' -~---~-------.-. __ . L --,_ 09., I / \ • -,.,., 0 . . I ' ,' ± ,, (..n / :1 v'~ 1,e] u, ; ~' ·, ' I " I;: 111 MICRO.DWOVENKITCHENFAMILY AREADINING AREAOPENLAUNDRYPOWDERBEDROOM/OFFICEELEVATORHALLW.I.C.MASTER BATHMASTER BEDROOMBALCONYDISPLAYTOILETTUBSHOWERMAKE-UPSEATHISHERSSHOWERDWBROOM/VACCUMPANTRYDNGASFPGASFPWDREF.FZ.UP(146)UPUP(153) (153) (146) (152) (151) (150) (149) (148) (147) SET - B A C K L I N E SET-BACK LINESET-BACK LINESET-BACK LINESET-BACK LINES E T - B A C K L I N E SET-BACK LINESET-DNOUTDOOR PATIO142.92 (F.F.E.)143.00(F.F.E.)138.92(F.F.E.)DN141.00(F.F.E.)2% MIN. SLOPE 142.92(F.F.E.)132.43154.79152.27515513013514045150155150140NUPPER LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONSSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"678210(129)(128)(111)(112)(116)(133)(134)(122)(123)(124)(125)(126)(127)(146)(153) (153)(146)(152)(151)(150)(149)(148)(147)NE AR E S T PU B L IC TR AN S POR T A T ION S TO P A P PRO X IM A T E L Y . 5MI L E S AW A Y N E AR TH E IN T ER S E T ION O F P VDRI V E W E S T ANDHAW THORN E B L VD .CONC.CONC.GARAGERESIDENCERESIDENCECONC.20'FD 2" I.P.FD 1" I.P. SET L&T R C E 3 0 8 2 6 SET L&T RCE 30826ON PROPERTY CORNER ON PROP E R T Y C O R N E R CURB L IN ECATCH B A S IN A.C. SWALEN 79°14'31"E 174.28' N 57°53'13"E10.00'L=17 .3 4'R=3 71 0 .00 ' 23.23'102.95111.35100.86100.00100.30 TX99.64 FL99.47 FL100.14 TX105.04106.45102.57109.55162.31160.03154.13132.43118.86111.12109.54108.63107.84108.89110.28159.54154.79163.61152.27102.24100.85109.182*2 PIL109.04108.91108.69106.22104.92103.18103.46100.64 TCELEC BOXCTV99.98GRATE99.23TEL MH102.83103.83103.87104.11105.46107.95108.92109.17109.56108.95108.54104.40109.62110.06112.56108.17107.41111.35106.89110.05110.03110.2118"PINE18"TREE115.82115.78114.3118"PALM18"TREE119.66121.51121.47119.4212"TREE2*2 PIL121.66121.70121.62122.11122.19121.95122.20122.14111.593"PINE6"CYP113.04109.23109.11108.92127.60110.27109.49152.35161.00157.141101 1 0 110110110115115120 120 125130130135135140140145145150155160115120125130135140145150155160FD 2" I.P.0.15' NW'LY OF CORNERFD 2" I.P. 0.25' W'LY OFCORNERSET L&T RCE 30826 ONPROPERTY CORNERSET L&T RCE 30826 ONPROPERTY CORNERSET L&T RCE 30826 ONPROPERTY CORNERSET 2X2 STAKE &TAG RCE 30826 ONPROPERTY CORNERSET L&T RCE30826 ONPROPERTYCORNER130135150155115110150145140125120(121)(120)(115)(110)(105)(119)(118)(117)(116)(114)(113)(112)(111)(109)(108)(107)(106)(104 ) ( 1 0 3 ) ( 1 0 2 ) ( 1 0 1 )FRONT YARD SETBACKHARDSCAPE CALCULATIONSSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"N7071,581567AREA CALCULATIONLOT SIZE: 10,457 SQ.FT.UPPER LEVEL PATIO/BALCONY CALCULATION: OUTDOOR PATIO AREA:678 SQ.FT.MASTER BEDROOM BALCONY AREA:210 SQ.FT.TOTAL UPPER LEVEL PATIO/BALCONY AREA: 888 SQ.FT.FRONT YARD HARDSCAPE CALCULATION: TOTAL FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA: 2,855 SQ.FT. (100.00%)LANDSCAPE COVERAGE:2,148 SQ.FT. ( 75.24%)HARDSCAPE COVERAGE: 707 SQ.FT. ( 24.76%)ENTRYLEVEL AREAGARAGEAREAUPPERLEVEL AREAEXISTINGDRIVEWAY AREANEW DRIVEWAYAREAHARDSCAPEAREABUILDINGFOOTPRINTLEGENDEXISTINGDRIVEWAY AREACOUNTED INHARDSCAPE CALCSUPPER LEVELPATIO/BALCONYAREAAREA CALCULATIONSCS-3JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-3D rn J' 0 D u D D u D D .s D E e u D D • \ \ \ + I I .// -, ''-/..' .· .. ·j·· .. •· f -··/I .. . I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / • I / \ / / •·-'-·· ' .... -.J-•' ~~----·---,-~.;· ·~ '••<_,. ,: . ~ •· " ~ ,---;.J '._;;', ,.\:'' ''P.'-'.'1 .,., ·' •I ', '\ I-' I \\ -' \ ·\ ·g '\, i " \ \ 1,\ 'I I\ \ I i ... -•·. . •·-'" I I I I ·\ • I .. . _ ... ,' / / / / / I 7 I I / ~ II I I I I 111111111111111 i / I L t.Ll1. _J / --~---\-~\\ ~-~--:~-~\~·-\:\ • • J-, • \ \ 0 -----------. . . . . . . ... --·'c..,-· --·· -· w ::::e < z r-z uJ _J 0 w e=! F r-0 uJ -, 0 0:: 0. BOUNDARY MONUMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARILYSET ON PROPERTY CORNERS. PLEASE REFER TOTHE NOTATION ON THE PLANS FOR OFFSETDISTANCES. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS,PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT DENNENGINEERS FOR CLARIFICATION AT :(310) 542-9433, M-F 8:00 AM TO 5:00 PM.C-4\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 'b'\, ,-.<" \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ LEGEND 1?'::;,2 EXISTING BUILDING CONCRETE •106.76 BRICK WOOD DECK EXISTING ELEVATION _,--------700---" EXISTING CONTOUR BLOCK WALL -X-EXISTING FENCE BCR BEGINNING OF CURB RETURN E'LY EASTERLY FD FOUND FF FINISH FLOOR FL FLOW LINE GFF GARAGE FINISH FLOOR GW GUY WIRE L&T LEAD AND TAG MH MANHOLE N'LY NORTHERLY PC PROPERTY CORNER PL, P /L PROPERTY LINE pp POWER POLE S&W SPIKE AND WASHER S'LY SOUTHERLY SPK SPIKE STK STAKE TC TOP OF CURB TW TOP OF WALL TX TOP OF DRIVEWAY APRON W'LY WESTERLY WM WATER METER NOTE: ALL SETBACK DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MEASURED TO EXTERIOR SURFACE OF BUILDINGS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ FD 1 ~ I.P. --------\ O\TEL MH \ \ \ \ \ \ ------------------------------------------------------------------------RESIDENCE \ ½:LL:LLL/LL/LLL'.L.( SIT L&T RCE 30826 ~• 9N PROPERTY CORNER \ \ \ \ \ ------------------------SET 2X2 STAKE & TAG RCE 3082 ON PROPERTY CORNER ----------------7?'.7,;7,777?'.1109. 11 I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I J CONC. -----/ C)y I ,, I I I I I I I I I I I 110.89 ;, ~ ., 0 ,._ 0 z ½ 0 " 0 ' 6" ,YPo \\1~ _,,_ GARAGE SET L&T RCE 30826 ON PROPERTY CORNER / I I I I I I \ I I '-/ .... / I I I I I I I I I / I I I I I I I -I I I I I / I / . I / . / I -,I / 0..,/ I .• e,, I , .... / I " -' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I I I I I I l,,;,3 -~-/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I . /' 1 .· I -,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,• ,() I .-K· i / I I ' I I I I .,._"::i /, / :,· -· I I I I I / I / / / I / / I I I i / / / / / / / I I I / / I / SURVEY & TOPOGRAPHY FOR TANIA & YOHAN HADDAD DRIVE WEST CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES RANCHO PALOS VERDES, (562) 421-4999 DATE 12-12-06 DRAWN BY G.R. CHECKED BY: REVISED: ANY CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THIS PLAN WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF DENN ENGINEERS SHALL RELIEVE DENN ENGINEERS FROM ANY LIABILITY OR DAMAGE RESULTING FROM SUCH CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS1)NCLUDING ANY ATTORNEYS FEES OR COSTS INCURRED IN ANY PROCEEDING THAT DENN ENGINEERS r,r,AY BE JOINED. / / / I I I I I I I I I I I I / / / / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I . I I i I I I I I / I I > I /{]'I,-' / .,, o"-/ / I I I I I I \ I \ \ I \ I \ \ FD 2" I.P. 0.25' W'LY OF CORNER GARY J. ROEHL R.C.E. 30826 E N G E E 3914 DEL AMO BLVD, SUITE 921 • TORRANCE, CA 90503 * (310) 542-9433 FD 2" I.P. 0.15' NW'LY R s OF CORNER JOB NO. 06-648 SHEET OF 1 LEGEND 60 (130) EXISTING HARDSCAPE GARAGE 135 LINES EXISTING CONTOUR NEW CONTOUR LINES ENTRY LEVEL PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN NEW DRIVEWAY DRAINAGE FLOW LINE PROP. LINE TYP. 6'-0" HIGH W.I. FENCE AT E.O.C. - EDGE OF COPING T.D. - TRENCH DRAIN T.O.C. - TOP OF CURB B.O.P. - BOTTOM OF POOL T.O.P. - TOP OF PIER T.O.G. - TOP OF GATE T.O.R. - TOP OF RAIL T.O.P. - TOP OF PILASTER T.O.W. - TOP OF WALL T.O.F. - TOP OF FENCE F.S. - FINISH SURFACE RAILING PROPERTY MARKER BUILDING FOOTPRINT WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING RETAINING import = 0.00 cu. yd. export = 547 cu. yd. fill = 251 cu. yd. cut = 798 cu. yd. THE CITY ENGINEER AND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE. TREES/LANDSCAPING WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, TO THE SATISFACITON OF CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE AT ITS SOLE COST, REMOVED/DAMAGED ENGINEERAND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE. POINTS, AT ITS SOLE COST, AND TO THE SATISFACTIONOF THE CITY AT ITS SOLE COST. CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-ESTABLISH DAMAGED SURVEY CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING SURVEY POINTS ANY DAMAGE INFLICTED BY CONTRACTOR ON EXISTING UTILITES. THE CITY ENGINEER, HIS REPRESENTATIVE AND/OR TO THE UTILITY COMPANIES, SOLE COST. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR, AT ITS COST TO THE SATISFACTION OF CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING UTILITIES AT ITS CHARGED FOR ALL EXPENSES INCURRED BY CITY CREWS. CONTRACTOR, REGARDING CITY RIGHT OF WAY, CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RENEWED DAILY. IF CITY CREWS ARE CALLED UPON TO PERFORM WORK OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE. SUCH CONSENT SHALL BE ALLOWED ON PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM CONSTRUCTION. NO STORAGE OF DEBRIS, MATERIALS, OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE THROUGHOUT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE KEPT CLEAR AND CLEAN TO THE SATISFACTION THE HOURS OF M-F 7AM TO 6PM; SAT. 9AM TO 5PM CAN BE HEARD AT ANY POINT ON ANY OTHER PREMISES, OTHER THAN DURING OR STRUCTURES, OR FOR ANY COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, THE NOISE FROM WHICH DESIGNATED OR USED FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF GOODS, WARES, BUILDINGS OR CONTROLLED BY SUCH PERSON, OF ANY TOOL, MACHINE OR OTHER THING SUFFER OR PERMIT THE OPERATION UPON ANY PREMISES OWNED, OCCUPIED NO PERSON SHALL, WITHIN THE CITY, OPERATE OR CAUSE THE OPERATION, OR ENGINEER AND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. DUST CONTROL SHALL BE ENFORCED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY REQUESTING FINAL INSPECTION. CLASS CERTIFICATES TO THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION PRIOR TO CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT COMPACTION REPORTS AND CONCRETE/ASPHALT BUSINESS DAY INSPECTION. CALLS RECEIVED AFTER 12:00 NOON SHALL NOT BE SCHEDULED FOR NEXT DIVISION AT (310) 378 - 0383 BEFORE 12:00 NOON FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS. ADVANCE. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPCTION 24 HOURS IN THE PERMIT DEPOSITS WILL BE RELEASED, LESS ANY AND ALL CHARGERS. TIME, IF ALL WORK PERTAINING TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS IN GOOD ORDER, AFTER CITY BUILDING DIVISION HAS MADE THEIR FINAL INSPECTION. AT THAT ENGINEER AND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE. FINAL INSPECTION WILL BE MADE ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS AND TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY BACKFILLING, COMPACTION AND TESTING SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ARE BEING POURED AND FINISHED OR AT THE TIME OF BACKFILLING. SECOND INSPECTION SHALL TAKE PLACE WHILE SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, ETC. DRIVEWAYS, ETC. OR AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTING THE SEWER LINE SADDLE. INSPECTION SHALL TAKE PLACE AFTER FORMS ARE IN PLACE FOR SIDEWALKS, BACKFILLING, CATCH BASINS, SUMP PUMPS AND OIL/WATER SEPARATOR. FIRST EJECTOR; ALL STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS INCLUDING ALL PIPING, TRENCHING, SEWER SYSTEMS INCLUDING ALL PIPING, TRENCHING, BACKFILLING AND SEWER PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR SHALL INSPECT ALL STREET IMPROVEMENTS, ALL MORE SHALL NOT USE CONDITIONAL TRUCK ROUTE. COMMERCIAL VEHICLE HAVING A FULLY LADEN WEIGHT OF 20,000 POUNDS OR USE DESIGNATED TRUCK ROUTE TO COMMUTE TO PROJECT SITE. ANY RATING AS DEFINED IN SECTION 390 OF CVC OF 10,000 POUNDS OR MORE SHALL OF 6,000 POUNDS OR MORE OR HAVING MANUFACTURER'S GROSS WEIGHT MATERIALS, AND HAVING UNLADEN WEIGHT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 660 OF CVC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES TRANSPORTING SOIL, EQUIPMENT OR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER AND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE. EDITON OF THE WATCH MANUAL, AND TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY TRAFFIC DELINEATION SHALL BE EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST BE CLASS D1-PG-64-10. GUTTER SHALL BE 12 INCHES WIDE OR MATCH EXISTING. NEW CONCRETE SHALL NEW CURB SHALL HAVE FACE HEIGHT OF 6 INCHES OR MATCH EXSITING. NEW CONSTRUCT NEW CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER WHERE NOTED ON SITE PLAN. SIDEWALK SHALL MATCH EXISTING. NEW CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 520-C-2500. CONSTRUCT NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK WHERE NOTED ON SITE PLAN. NEW ENGINEER AND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE. DRIVEWAYS, CURB, GUTTER AND PAVEMENT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE AT ITS SOLE COST, DAMAGED SIDEWALK, WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT.” EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL MAIL 30-DAYS “SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE IS “PRIMARY”AND NOT EXCESS. THE CANCELLATION CLAUSE SHALL STATE INSURED.” THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE MUST STATE THAT THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONS, AGENTS AND VALUNTEERS ARE HEREBY NAMED ADDITIONAL ELECTED OFFICIALS, ATTORNEYS, EMPLOYESS, MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND POLICY SHALL STATE “THE CITY RANCHO PALOS VERDES, ITS OFFICERS, ADDITIONAL INSURED, WITH 30-DAY CANCELLATION NOTICE. THE INSURANCE FILES APPROVED ONE MILLION DOLLAR GENERAL LIABILITY NAMING THE CITY MUST PROVIDE PROOF OF INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ON CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING/ENGINEERING PERMIT, CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE UPON DEMAND. REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS TO THE CITY ENGINEER AND /OR HIS OF PLANS ON SITE AT ALL TIME. CONTRACTOR SHALL SURRENDER ALL CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND AN APPROVED SET RANCHO PALOS VERDES BUSINESS LICENSES. CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL POSSESS VALID CITY OF WORK IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE PERFORMED BY LICENSED CONTRACTORS. SATISFACTION OF CITY ENGINEER AND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE. APWA STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND SHALL BE EXECUTED TO THE WORK IN PUBLIC RIGH OF WAY, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY CITY ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION 48 HOURS WILL IT ALTER THE EXISTING COURSE OF WATER FLOW. NOT CREATE POTENTIAL FLOODING OF NEIGHBORING IMPROVEMENTS, NOR CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST, SHALL ENSURE THAT PERMITED WORK WILL ON THIS SITE PLAN. UTILITY CABINTES, UTILITY OVERHEAD LINES AND WATER HYDRANTS ARE SHOWN HARDSCAPE, UTILITY POLES, UTILITY BOXES, UTILITY VENTS, UTILITY VAULTS, ALL EASEMENTS, OIL WELLS, SUBSTRUCTURES, SUPERSTRUCTURES, LANDSCAPE, PROPERTY LINE 16'-6"3'-0"13'-7"5'-6"3'-0"5'-0"1'-8"15'-6"4'-11"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXXX12" TREE113.58'174.28'10.00'L=17.34'R=3710.00'132.00'121.00'26.63'37.50'71.62' 83.53' 57.03'23.23'102.95 111.35 101.39 100.66 100.86 96.46 100.00 100.30 TX 99.64 FL 99.47 FL 100.14 TX 105.04 106.45 102.57 109.55 162.31 160.03 154.13 132.43 118.86 111.12 109.54 108.63 107.84 108.89 110.28 159.54 154.79 163.61 152.27 102.24 100.85 100.66 96.48 109.18 2*2 PIL 109.04 108.91 108.69 106.22 104.92 103.18 103.46 100.64 TCELEC BOX CTV 99.98 GRATE 99.23 TEL MH 102.83 103.83 103.87 104.11 105.46 107.95 108.92109.17 109.56 108.95 108.54 104.40 109.62 110.06 112.56 108.17 107.41 111.35 106.89 110.05 110.03 110.21 18"PINE 18"TREE 115.82 115.78 114.31 18"PALM 18"TREE 119.66 121.51 121.47 119.42 12"TREE 2*2 PIL 121.66 121.70 121.62 122.11 122.19 121.95 122.20 122.14 111.59 3"PINE 6"CYP 113.04 109.23 109.11 108.92 127.60 110.27 109.49 152.35 161.00 157.14 110 110 110 110 110115 115120120125 13 0 130135135 14 0 14 0 145 145 150 155160 121.81 121.8411512012 5 1 3 0 13 5 140 14 5 150155160 130 135 150 155 115110150 140 125 120(129)(128) UP UP UP (111) ( 1 12)(116) (133) (134) (122) (123)(124) (125)(126) (127) (146) UP SET-BACK LINESET-BACK LI NESET-BACK LINE SET-BACK LI NESET-BACK LINE SET-B A C K LINESET-BACK LINESETBA C KSIDE YA RD 5'-0" SID E YA R D SETBA C K5'-0"20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACKSETBACKSIDE YARD 5'-2" 5'-2" SIDE YARD SETBACK YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT Y ARD SETBACK 20'-0" FRONT DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS SET BACK6'-11" MIN.7'-6"LINE OF ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE 146.58 T.O.W.145.00 B.O.W. 145.00 B.O.W.SETBACKREAR YARD15'-0" SETBACKREAR YARD15'-0" (153)(153)(146)(152)(151)(150)(149)(148)(147)156.50 T.O.W. 152.50 B.O.W. 151.00 T.O.W. 146.00 B.O.W. B.O.W. 145.00 T.O.W. 150.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION NOTES CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. GRADING NOTES AND GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING UTILITY PURVEYORS CONTACTS: VICINITY MAP NTS SHEET INDEX PLAN 0 20 40 SCALE: 1" = 20' LEGAL DESCRIPTION SURVEYOR'S NOTES 8:00 AM TO 5:00 PM. (310) 542-9433, M-F CLARIFICATION AT : DENN ENGINEERS FOR NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE DO DISTANCES. IF THERE ARE THE PLANS FOR OFFSET REFER TO THE NOTATION ON PROPERTY CORNERS. PLEASE NOT NECESSARILY SET ON 2. BOUNDARY MONUMENTS ARE OTHERWISE NOTED. BUILDINGS UNLESS EXTERIOR SURFACE OF SHOWN ARE MEASURED TO 1. ALL SETBACK DIMENSIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. STANDARDS. & GUTTER, AND DRAINAGE PIPE ON PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN CLASS 'A' PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING DRIVEWAY, CURB WORK COMMENCING ON THE SITE. GRADING CONTRACTOR, AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO ANY OWNER OR OWNER'S AGENT, CIVIL ENGINEER, SOIL ENGINEER, GEOLOGIST (IF APPLICABLE,) PRE-GRADE MEETING REQUIRED WITH CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, APPROVED THE BOTTOM OF THE EXCAVATION. NO FILL TO BE PLACED UNTIL THE CITY GRADING INSPECTOR HAS INSPECTED AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES. A 30 DAY NOTIFICATION IS REQUIRED FOR REMOVAL OF LATERAL SUPPORT OF A SEPARATE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FOR SHORING, AND FOR RETAINING WALLS. COMPLETED HAUL ROUTE MEMO FOR IMPORT/EXPORT OVER 1000 CU. YD. ALL DOWNSPOUTS SHOULD BE CONNECTED TO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. BY RESPONSIBLE ENGINEER. AND NECESSARY STRUCTURAL SUPPORTING MEMBERS UNLESS RECOMMENDED OTHERWISE WALL SHALL BE BACKFILLED NOT LATER THAN 10 DAYS AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL RETAINING WALLS LOCATED CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE BY A.S.T.M. METHOD D1557-91. RECOMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95 PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED INCHES, MOISTENED OR DRIED OUT TO OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, AND PRIOR TO PLACING PAVEMENT, THE SUB GRADE SHALL BE SCARIFIED TO A DEPTH OF 6 PROCEDURES. GRADING INSPECTOR'S AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL OF PROPOSED TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL TO BE INSTALLED BETWEEN NOV. 1 AND APR 15 OBTAIN COMPACTED FILL. REMOVE MATERIAL DOWN TO COMPETENT BEDROCK AND REPLACE AS CERTIFIED IF SLABS ARE LOCATED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING ARTIFICIAL FILL AND/OR SOILS PRESENT, STAKE AND FLAG THE PROPERTY LINES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LICENSED SURVEY MAP. DETERMINED BY A.S.T.M. METHOD D-1557, REQUIRED BY CODE. ALL FILL OR BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION AS STREET IN AN APPROVED DEVICE AT 2% MINIMUM, EXCEPT AS SHOWN. ALL CONCENTRATED DRAINAGE INCLUDING ROOF WATER SHALL BE CONDUCTED TO THE ALL CUT OR FILL SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN 2:1. 14. 15. 19. 20. 21. 16. 17. 18. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 4.) Sanitation District of Los Angeles County(SDLAC): 3.) California Water Services(CWS): 2.) Southern California Edison(SCE): 1.) Southern California Gas (SCG): 310-257-1400 800-611-1911 800-427-2200 562-908-4288 29. WORK. DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY ANTICIPATED A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY , THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN IF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE TEL.: 310-618-2190 1641 BORDER AVE, TORRANCE CA 90501 HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: NO. PR0612201 PER PROGRESSIVE TITLE REPORT M.B. 649-43-47 TRACT NO. 23943 PORTION OF LOT 79 SECTIONS GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN SITE PLAN C-3 C-2 C-1 WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT. ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY REAL OR ALLEGED IN CONNECTION THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE OWNER AND THE SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS AND INCLUDING THE SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTIES; THAT THIS REQUIREMENT THE JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF HIS PROJECT, CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY OF INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE: SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN BID QUANTITIES. THE QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY, THE CONTRACTOR EARTH QUANTITIES: FENCE OR A CANOPY ON OR EVEN OVER ANY STREET OR PUBLIC SPACE.. A PERMIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IS REQUIRED FOR A PROTECTION REQUIRED TO DESCEND ARE PERMITTED. NO TRENCHES OR EXCAVATIONS 5 FT. OR MORE IN DEPTH INTO WHICH A PERSON IS PROJECT. DUST SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY WATERING. DUST CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE FROM THE CITY INSPECTOR PRIOR TO PLACING ANY FILL MATERIAL. ALL DEBRIS AND FOREIGN MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE PER APPROVAL THE SOIL ENGINEER.. CONSTRUCTION WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FULLY COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY EXCAVATION AND THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF OF THE SOIL ENGINEER.. CONSTRUCTION. ALL GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED UNDER THE DIRECTION THE SOIL ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 2 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE START OF OF BUILDING LOCATIONS. THIS PLAN IS GRADING ONLY AND APPROVAL OF SAME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL THIS GRADING PLAN, WHEN APPROVED, SHALL BE ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES. THE ENERGY AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE CODE. CODE, AND THE 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, THE CORRECT REQUIREMENTS OF RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMING CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GRADING REVISIONS BY DRAWN SCALE CHECKED DATE JOB NO. SHEET SHEETSOFSOIL ENGINEER:SOIL ENGINEER SERTIFICATION:BY:PLANS AND THAT THEY ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RECOMENDATIONS OF THE SOILS REPORT.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THESEDATE:OWNER:LACY EOFE 422-4133 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIGG1-800 TOLL FREED I UOBL Underground Service Alert R Call: C-1 1 3SITE PLANGM AS NOTEDG&M ENGINEERING818 551-0353GLENDALE, CA 912011623 THOMPSON AVENUENo. C55855 REGISTERED PROFESSION AL E NGI NEERS TA T E OF CALIFORNIACIVIL VOK RAM .P EGRO EGMA 16-02-071 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WESTWON-HAAS RESIDENCE04/23/2021 C-5 C-6 6'TALL WOOD FENCE ALONG PROPERTY LINE ----.-' A PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SCREENING C-3 \ \ \ \ PROPOSED \ \ Ii le, \0, \~ 1,.. le, i>S 108.92 109.11 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CUT \ \ \ GRADING QUANTITY MAX. DEPTH (CY) (LF) RESIDENCE 618 15 ANCILLARY SITE 123 10 IMPROVEMENTS RETAINING 65 7 WALL 109 23 FILL QUANTITY MAX. DEPTH (CY) (LF) 149 8 98 10 4 1 159.54 '•,,, 154. 79 RETAINING WALL FOR TW EL SEE PLAN RETAINING WALL 0 z~ ::,; 0 (lJ NW _w D' LL. FOR BW EL SEE PLAN FINISH GRADE I (155.00 EGJ \ 150.00 INV V-DITCH N.T.S. FL OF EXIST. CONC, SWALE MIRA PLY V CIS # 07130 1 \ \ \ \ \ I I PLAN 0 8 16 SCALE: I" ~ 8' 4" THICK PNEUMATICALL APPLIED CONCRET WITH 6"X6" W2.9/W2.9 W.W.F. ST A 0+14.66 TO STA 1+33.81 \ I \ I \ \ I I - 24 \ \ \ \ I I \ I \ \ I \ \ I I . \. ·~4 -h . I .. . I ., .· \\ ·,I NOTES TO THE CONTRACTOR 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FJELD VERIFY AND DETERMINE THE DEPTH AND LOCATION OF ALL EXTSTING UTILITIES AROUND AND IN THE AREA OF NEW CONSTRUCTION AND SUB DRAIN INSTALLATION, BY POT-HOLING AND FIELD SURVEY. IN ADDITION, PRIOR TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT POTHOLE AND SURVEY DATA, SHOWING THE DEPTH AND LOCATION OF THE EXISTING UTIUTIES AND ALL UTIUTY CROSSINGS AND CONNECTIONS FORAPPROVALBYTHEENGJNEER. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT TN PLACE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES,STRUCTURES, AND FEATURES TO REMAIN 1N PLACE UNLESS NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWJSE. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD VERIFY ALL SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND UTIIJTIES, WHETHER SHOWN OR NOT HEREIN, BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY FJELD WORK. 0 0 0 0 21.70 >- =121.62 CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTRUCT HARDSCAPE PER ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. ELECBOX CONSTRUCT 6" PVC AREA DRAIN ATRIUM PER NDS OR EQUAL. INSTALL 3" CIP PIPES. INSTALL 6" ADS HDPE PIPES STORM DRAIN SYSTEM OR EQUAL PER PLAN. 0 CONSTRUCT WALL PER SEPERATE PERMIT AND PLANS. G_) CONSTRUCT 2 X "CURB-0-LET" THRU THE CURB DRAIN PER CITY SPECIFICATIONS 0 REMOVE EXISTING (E) PALM TREE. 0 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE V-DFI'CH, W~/8", H-9" (SEE DETAIL I HEREON) 0 CONSTRUCT 2'X2'X2' CONCRETE CATCH BASIN WITH GRATES @ CONSTRUCT 6" PVC AREA DRAIN PER NDS OR EQUAL. @ CONSTRUCT TRENCH DRAIN. W~/2", H~6"-12", L PER PLAN, PER NDS OR EQUAL APPROVED. @ CONSTRUCT 18''Xl8''X24''X DEEP CONC. CATCH BASJN. SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C-3. INSTALL 12" HDPE SD PIPE. CONSTRUCT 12" HIGH SPLASH WALL AROUND CB (3 STDES) CONSTRUCT 0" TO 12" CONCRETE CURB FOR 3' LONG TRANSITION. CONSTRUCT 18" HIGH HEAD & WING WALLS. INSTALL RIP-RAP. Underground Service Alert Call: TOLL FREE 1-800 422-4133 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG REVISIONS BY ~ ~ °' ~ cJ ~ 0 ~ o..; ~ ts c5 "'-1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E--,' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ::a: c5 "'-1 ~ '13- i::::, II") i::::, <v; RAWN MA CHECKED GM DATE 04/23/202I SCALE AS NOTED JOB NO. 16-02-071 SHEET C-2 2 OF 3 SHEETS C-7 ,--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINISH GRADE - I UJI z - I I UJ z ...J ~ 0:: UJ c.. 0 0:: c.. I I I I I I I I I I 12.25' -- 1 Li' ' 1 • ~ ~ -LO 102.2 7'+(V ARIES, SEE PLAN) 79. 75'+(V ARIES, SEE PLAN) 10.27' ~ ~ 157.50 ~ MAX_ HEIGHT ------------------=-n I L __ ~-+------------------------------------------------------------------1-'--------------wl--------------------'l-.-----~~,-~~~5i~g~~----'. ---I I I I I I I I --~ I ' ' I I I ' . I ' I ' ' I ' HALL HALL EXISTING GROUND \ KITCHEN --~---~--~--~--~--~--~ ------- ------ -. 'j1 --, 1 , . ____________ z....J r------------------_/ ~ ~ ~ -------------~ ----------------------T- DINING ROOM -----------------.. --------------er UJ c.. 0 0:: c..1 1 --- ------------------= I L---~'- I '-- 6 ·' --- 6 ·' 0 ~ 143.00 UPPER LEVEL F.F.E_ '. • "' ' "' ~ TEMPORARY EXCAVATION N ~ I ,. ,, . ' ' I '\.II• -" LO - I ' ' TEMPORARY EXCAVATION SECTION A-A 31.45' w oz 0:: ....I ~~ I-(.) z <( 0~ 0:: w LL en ~ T.O.W. ·,. __ _ I I 127.50 LOWEST FINISHED GRADE NTS 106.74' 143.42 T.O.R. 139.92 F.S. f---E_X_IS_T_I N_G_G_R_O_U_N_D----J\ f---------------j 129.50 f-----------~~--j T.0.W. 128.00 • ...i:vv. ;ii ■ SECTION NTS - 59. 79' ,, I I I I I STAIRS ,· ' F.G. B-B ' ~ -----------------= '- 131.50 LOWER LEVEL F.F.E. 129.50 ENTRY LEVEL F_F_E_ '. -----------------------..i 128.00 15.5' + I I (VARIES, SEE PLAN) I 1' A.D.U. LEVEL F.F.E ..i 127.50 1' GARAGE LEVEL F_F_E. 143.00 UPPER LEVEL F.F.E. $ 131.50 ~ ~ LOWER LEVEL F.F.E. ., . 129.50 1 ~ ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E. , $ 128.00 ) ", •. A.D.U. LEVEL F.F.E "' ",.,. 127.50 1 ~ GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E. 146.00 TW // 12' HIGH 6" THICK / SPLASH WALL 18" ATRIUM GRATE 146.00 TW 145.00TG 145.00 FS 143.00 INV - N - <O 146.00 TW H=1' ' ' ' ' 146.00 TW; H=1' 12" HOPE SD 6" 147.00TW (147.00) FS H=0' (146.00) FL - CATCH BASIN 0ET AIL N.T.S. 1.5' 6" 2.5' TRANSITION ·---18" ATRIUM NDSGRATE #4@12" E.W. TYP. CL 12" SD PIPE 6" w z ::J .... :::, 0 ! CATCH BASIN A N.T.S. Underground Service Alert Call: TOLL FREE 1-800 422-4133 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG w 15 I~ 0.. 0 c:: 0.. \_ 146.50 TW (146.00) FS H=0.5' (146.00) FL JOIN EXISTING CONCRETE DITCH No. C55855 C IV\\,.. Op CAL\ REVISIONS BY >JIAWN MA CHECKED GM DATE 04/23/2021 SCALE AS NOTED JOBNO. 16-02-071 SHEET C-3 3 OF 3 SHEETS LEGENDEXISTING HARDSCAPE(130)GARAGE135EXISTING CONTOURLINESNEW CONTOUR LINESENTRY LEVEL PLANSECOND FLOOR PLANNEW DRIVEWAYDRAINAGE FLOW LINE6'-0" HIGH W.I. FENCE ATPROP. LINE TYP.F.S. - FINISH SURFACET.O.F. - TOP OF FENCET.O.W. - TOP OF WALLT.O.P. - TOP OF PILASTERT.O.R. - TOP OF RAILT.O.G. - TOP OF GATET.O.P. - TOP OF PIERB.O.P. - BOTTOM OF POOLT.O.C. - TOP OF CURBT.D. - TRENCH DRAINE.O.C. - EDGE OF COPINGRAILINGPROPERTY MARKERBUILDING FOOTPRINTEXISTING RETAININGWALL TO REMAINCONDENSING UNITS(129)(128)UPUPUP(111)(112)(116)(133)(134)(122 ) (123 ) (124 ) (125 ) (126 ) (127 )(146)UP(153) (153) (146) (152) (151) (150) (149) (148) (147)DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSA-7.01A-7.02A-7.13A-7.1416'-6" 3'-0"N131.42 (F.F.E.)8'-11"3'-0"NE AR E S T PU B L IC TR AN S POR T A T ION S TO P A P PRO X IM A T E L Y . 5MI L E S AW A Y N E AR TH E IN T ER S E T ION O F P VDRI V E W E S T ANDHAW THORN E B L VD .DRIVEWAY MAX. ELEVATION AT GARAGE DOOR:127.50'DRIVEWAY LOWEST ELEVATION AT PROPERTYLINE: 103.50'CHANGE IN ELEVATION: (127.50-103.50) = 24'TOTAL LENGTH OF DRIVEWAY 200'AVERAGE SLOPE ((CHANGE INELEVATION/LENGTH)x100%)(24'/200')x100%= .12x100% = 12% AVERAGE SLOPE1'-8"Ø25'-0"15'-6"7'-6"142.92 (F.F.E.)4'-11"1'-10"1'-10"SITE PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"DECKDECK5'-6" A-8.2 E A-8.2 E A-8.0AA-8.0AA-8.0AA-8.0AA-8.1DA-8.1DA-8.0BA-8.0BA-8.1DA-8.1DA-8.1CA-8.1CA-8.1CA-8.1CA-8.2 F A-8.2 F A-8.2FA-8.2F A-8.0BA-8.0BA-8.2EA-8.2EA-8.3GA-8.3GA-8.3GA-8.3GA-8.3HA-8.3H8"12" TREECONC.CONC.GARAGERESIDENCERESIDENCE20'FD 2" I.P. SET L&T R C E 3 0 8 2 6 ON PROP E R T Y C O R N E R A.C . SWA LE N 79°1 4' 3 1 " E 174.2 8' 23.23'111.35109.55162.31160.03154.13132.43118.86111.12109.54108.63107.84108.89110.28159.54154.79163.61152.27109.182*2 PIL109.04109.56108.95109.62110.06112.56108.17107.41111.35106.89110.05110.03110.2118"PINE18"TREE115.82115.78114.3118"PALM18"TREE119.66121.51121.47119.4212"TREE2*2 PIL121.66121.70121.62122.11122.19121.95122.20122.14111.593"PINE6"CYP113.04109.23109.11108.92127.60110.27109.49152.35161.00157.141101 1 0 110 110110115115120120 125130130135135140140145145150155160115120125130135140145150155160FD 2" I.P.0.15' NW'LY OF CORNERFD 2" I.P. 0.25' W'LY OFCORNERSET L&T RCE 30826 ONPROPERTY CORNERSET L&T RCE 30826 ONPROPERTY CORNERSET L&T RCE 30826 ONPROPERTY CORNERSET 2X2 STAKE &TAG RCE 30826 ONPROPERTY CORNERSET L&T RCE30826 ONPROPERTYCORNER130135150155115110150145140125120156.50T.O.W.152.50B.O.W.151.00T.O.W.146.00B.O.W.128.00T.O.W.135.50(E.F.G.)127.92F.S.128.00(E.F.G.)128.00T.O.W.126.00T.O.W.115.00B.O.W.120.00T.O.W.113.40B.O.W.125.50B.O.W.120.00T.O.W.128.00T.O.W.124.75F.S.126.50F.S.127.50F.F.E.127.42F.F.E.129.42F.F.E.121.95F.S.121.82(E.F.S)129.50T.O.W.129.50T.O.W.126.00T.O.W.128.00T.O.W.128.00T.O.W.129.50T.O.W.127.50B.O.W.125.50B.O.W.128.00T.O.W.127.50F.G.127.16F.S.127.50B.O.W.121.00B.O.W.127.50F.G.114.00(E.F.G.)122.10(E.F.S.)125.00F.G.125.50B.O.W.127.50B.O.W.126.50F.S.127.50B.O.W.127.93(E.T.O.W.)129.00B.O.W.130.00B.O.W132.50T.O.W.119.50B.O.W.125.50B.O.W.126.00T.O.W.119.50B.O.W.125.50B.O.W.119.50B.O.W.120.00T.O.W.117.00B.O.W.125.25T.O.W.127.50B.O.W.129.00B.O.W.133.50E.F.G.127.00B.O.W.125.50T.O.W.129.00B.O.W.129.00B.O.W.134.08F.G.132.00B.O.W.132.50T.O.W.129.50T.O.W.128.00B.O.W.119.50B.O.W.115.50T.O.W.112.25B.O.W.115.00B.O.W.116.50B.O.W.135.08T.O.W.132.50T.O.W.134.00T.O.W.130.00B.O.W.135.50T.O.W.127.00B.O.W.133.00T.O.W.127.92F.S.146.58T.O.W.145.00B.O.W.142.92F.S.143.75B.O.W.148.75T.O.W.124.00B.O.W.129.00T.O.W.128.00T.O.W.127.50F.G.127.92F.S.125.50T.O.W.125.00F.G.128.00T.O.W.123.00B.O.W.127.50F.G.125.50B.O.W.126.00T.O.W.143.00F.S.120.00T.O.W.126.00F.S.128.00T.O.W.115.50T.O.W.115.00B.O.W.115.00B.O.W.127.42F.S.126.00T.O.W.124.00F.S.126.00T.O.W.123.00B.O.W.123.00B.O.W.122.00B.O.W.123.50T.O.W.123.00B.O.W.145.00B.O.W.145.00B.O.W.146.58T.O.W.146.20B.O.W.142.00B.O.W.146.58T.O.W.142.00B.O.W.135.00T.O.W.134.00B.O.W.132.50B.O.W.133.00B.O.W.131.00B.O.W.132.00B.O.W.127.50B.O.W.129.00B.O.W.129.00B.O.W.129.50T.O.W.127.00B.O.W.132.00B.O.W.122.60B.O.W.125.00B.O.W.132.00B.O.W.132.50T.O.W.124.00B.O.W.125.00B.O.W.127.50B.O.W.128.00T.O.W.129.50T.O.W.146.58T.O.R.142.92B.O.R.134.42T.O.R.131.42B.O.R.127.25B.O.W.127.50B.O.W.123.00B.O.W.123.50T.O.W.120.00B.O.W.120.00B.O.W.119.50B.O.W.120.00T.O.W.123.00B.O.W.123.50T.O.W.120.00B.O.W.119.50B.O.W.120.00T.O.W.119.00B.O.W.150.50T.O.W.145.50B.O.W.155.00T.O.W.150.00B.O.W.158.50T.O.W.153.50B.O.W.152.00B.O.W.153.50T.O.W.146.50T.O.W.145.00B.O.W.SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINESET-BACK LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINESET-BACK LINES E T - B A C K L I N E SET-BACK LINESET B A C K L I N E 5'-0"SIDE YARDSETBACK5'-0"SIDE YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONTYARD SETBACK15'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 15'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 5'-2"SIDE YARDSETBACK5'-2" SIDE YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONTYARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK5'-2" SIDE YARD SETBACKPREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 03/09/2021PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 02/10/2020LINE OF ROOFOVERHANG ABOVELINE OF ROOF OVERHANG ABOVELINE OF ROOFOVERHANG ABOVEEXISTING FENCETO BE REMOVED153.50 HIGHEST EXISTINGGRADE ELEVATIONCOVERED BY STRUCTURELOWESTEXISTINGGRADE 127.5TREE TO BEREMOVEDSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTSKYLIGHTEXISTING FENCETO BE REMOVEDEXISTING FENCETO BE REMOVEDEXISTING A.C. SWALETO BE REMOVEDTREE TO BEREMOVEDEASEMENT AREA PERSETTLEMENTAGREEMENT ASRECORDED AS EXHIBIT"C" , ON FEB 24, 2015,AS INST. NO.20150201523, O.R.AREA = 623 SQ.FT. +/-A.C.PAD AT123.00PLANTERPROPOSEDLANDSCAPESCREENING6' TALL WOODFENCE ALONGPROPERTY LINETREE TO BEREMOVEDEXISTING RETAININGWALL TO REMAIN7'-2"7'-2"5'-0"2'-2"2'-0" SITE PLAN A-1.0JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-8D D E rn 0 0 D u D D -u ·"-e 0 u D D u E D E e D L " u D D u D D 0 D \ J ~ I I I I I • i I \ -\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I ."\ ~--D \ ', '.' , ._ ... '· " ·' _,.i ·' " . ' • ·" -~ ~~ ~. '° 00 < .f ·, ·1 ' ' .. .. ,· .. .. --• • I .. _ .. . . . .. _ .. · . .. ,• ,. . .. • " .-._ .. • , .' ... -. .. -. ,,. ,, . ' . • •' ·' .' • .. • .. --•• . I ·.·• \ I I• ·, __. 0 .• .. D " ... ,, • I , 0 < w ::::e -< z r-Q ...J 0 w e=! F t; w -, 0 0:: 0.. FD 2" I.P.WAL E132.43118.86111.12154.79152.271121.95111.59.49152.35157.14110125130130145150155160115120125130135140145150FD 2" I.P.0.15' NW'LY OF CORNERFD 2" I.P. 0CORNERSET L&T RCE30826 ONPROPERTYCORNER135150155115110150145140125120(129)(128)UPUPUP(111)(112)(116)(133)(134)(122 ) (123 ) (124 ) (125 ) (126 ) (127 )(146)UP(153) (153) (146) (152) (151) (150) (149) (148) (147) PRO P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE131.50 (F.F.E.)129.50 (F.F.E.)131.50 (F.F.E.)DEN/GUEST AREAHALLBEDROOMBEDROOMFOYERDRIVEWAYPORCHELEVCRAWL SPACEHALL(2) CAR GARAGEDISPLAYPORCHLINENSHOP129.92 (F.F.E.)UPENTRY LEVEL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"NUPUP131.42 (F.F.E.)DECK156.50T.O.W.152.50B.O.W.151.00T.O.W.146.00B.O.W.128.00T.O.W.135.50(E.F.G.)127.92F.S.128.00(E.F.G.)128.00T.O.W.126.00T.O.W.115.00B.O.W.120.00T.O.W.113.40B.O.W.125.50B.O.W.120.00T.O.W.128.00T.O.W.124.75F.S.126.50F.S.127.50F.F.E.127.42F.F.E.129.42F.F.E.121.95F.S.121.82(E.F.S)129.50T.O.W.129.50T.O.W.126.00T.O.W.128.00T.O.W.128.00T.O.W.129.50T.O.W.127.50B.O.W.125.50B.O.W.128.00T.O.W.127.50F.G.127.16F.S.127.50B.O.W.121.00B.O.W.127.50F.G.114.00(E.F.G.)122.10(E.F.S.)125.00F.G.125.50B.O.W.127.50B.O.W.126.50F.S.127.50B.O.W.127.93(E.T.O.W.)129.00B.O.W.130.00B.O.W132.50T.O.W.119.50B.O.W.125.50B.O.W.126.00T.O.W.119.50B.O.W.125.50B.O.W.119.50B.O.W.120.00T.O.W.117.00B.O.W.125.25T.O.W.127.50B.O.W.129.00B.O.W.133.50E.F.G.127.00B.O.W.125.50T.O.W.129.00B.O.W.129.00B.O.W.134.08F.G.132.00B.O.W.132.50T.O.W.129.50T.O.W.128.00B.O.W.119.50B.O.W.115.50T.O.W.112.25B.O.W.115.00B.O.W.116.50B.O.W.135.08T.O.W.132.50T.O.W.134.00T.O.W.130.00B.O.W.135.50T.O.W.127.00B.O.W.133.00T.O.W.127.92F.S.146.58T.O.W.145.00B.O.W.142.92F.S.143.75B.O.W.148.75T.O.W.124.00B.O.W.129.00T.O.W.128.00T.O.W.127.50F.G.127.92F.S.125.50T.O.W.125.00F.G.128.00T.O.W.123.00B.O.W.127.50F.G.125.50B.O.W.126.00T.O.W.143.00F.S.120.00T.O.W.139.00(E.F.G.)126.00F.S.128.00T.O.W.115.50T.O.W.115.00B.O.W.115.00B.O.W.127.42F.S.126.00T.O.W.124.00F.S.126.00T.O.W.123.00B.O.W.123.00B.O.W.122.00B.O.W.123.50T.O.W.123.00B.O.W.145.00B.O.W.145.00B.O.W.146.58T.O.W.146.20B.O.W.142.00B.O.W.146.58T.O.W.142.00B.O.W.135.00T.O.W.134.00B.O.W.132.50B.O.W.133.00B.O.W.131.00B.O.W.132.00B.O.W.127.50B.O.W.129.00B.O.W.129.00B.O.W.129.50T.O.W.127.00B.O.W.132.00B.O.W.122.60B.O.W.125.00B.O.W.132.00B.O.W.132.50T.O.W.124.00B.O.W.125.00B.O.W.127.50B.O.W.128.00T.O.W.129.50T.O.W.146.58T.O.R.142.92B.O.R.134.42T.O.R.131.42B.O.R.127.25B.O.W.127.50B.O.W.123.00B.O.W.123.50T.O.W.120.00B.O.W.120.00B.O.W.119.50B.O.W.120.00T.O.W.123.00B.O.W.123.50T.O.W.120.00B.O.W.119.50B.O.W.120.00T.O.W.119.00B.O.W.150.50T.O.W.145.50B.O.W.152.00B.O.W.153.50T.O.W.146.50T.O.W.145.00B.O.W.144.75(E.F.G.)142.10(E.F.G.)146.00(E.F.G.)140.00(E.F.G.)A-7.01A-7.02A-7.13A-7.1420'-0 "BATHBATH128.00(F.F.E.)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSTREE TO BEREMOVEDTREE TO BEREMOVEDPLANTERA-8.2 E A-8.2 E A-8.0AA-8.0AA-8.0AA-8.0AA-8.1DA-8.1DA-8.0BA-8.0BA-8.1DA-8.1DA-8.1CA-8.1CA-8.1CA-8.1CA-8. 2 F A-8. 2 F A-8. 2 F A-8. 2 F A-8.0BA-8.0BA-8.2EA-8.2EA-8.3GA-8.3GA-8.3GA-8.3GA-8.3HA-8.3HGARAGEWAL E132.43118.86111.12154.79152.271121.95111.59.49152.35157.14110125130130145150155160115120125130135140145150FD 2" I.P.0.15' NW'LY OF CORNERFD 2" I.P. 0CORNERSET L&T RCE30826 ONPROPERTYCORNER135150155115110150145140125120PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 03/09/2021PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 03/09/2021PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 02/10/2020PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 02/10/2020EXISTING RETAININGWALL TO REMAINSET B A C K L I N E SETBACK LINESET-BACK LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINESET-BACK LINES E T - B A C K L I N E SET-BACK LINESET B A C K L I N E 5'-0"SIDE YARDSETBACK5'-0"SIDE YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK15'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 15'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 5'-2"SIDE YARDSETBACK5'-2" SIDE YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONTYARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK5'-2" SIDE YARD SETBACK BASEMENT LEVEL PLANA-3.0JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-9Drawings and specifications os instruments of service are and shall remoin the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the dient may be utilized only for his use and for occupying !he projed for Which they Were prepared, ond no! for the conslrudion of any other projeds. Any use or repradudian af this drawing in Whole or par! by any means Whatsoever is stridly prohibited except \ll'ith specific Written consent of EnviroTechno Archiledure. -------- _Jc-------- --- ) ) 11 .. \ \ ~7:t /\ ' ! :---.. ! \ -----! I ~ _ ... i-----' --- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 ~/ ---"7'--. 0 ' -_,.:.__ / ---~ /--✓ .. -/ ,. :r-,.. ----·- ;' / ' -~~-~~ I I I ;------..., ___ ..... --.;(-/ ' ___ , ----.~ I :·a......_ L ..... 1,, ............... ! I I ! .·- ! ' . . .. ' ' ! I I .. ' ✓ / /! ! ! --1 /J. u I' • ------ / - I \"·-;·· f -/--:r·--;--1-;,-.-----~ i/;11 '1 T l I '--!-/'. ! ! . ·I ' ! '---~ , . , , ' ----------I , i . ;;~ . ---! ' !, 'f ·--, -'ii -.. ,/·-----. ' . l . " ,,,.,,__ ,,__ ' ' , " , ··---,, I ·.·· . r,,,...,__i--..; 1/ ! /; 1 •··-._ - -,---' . : ' ' -i / ----,!___ ---_ ! ! i / } . ..... ...,.,. ,,__ -,_,, -·-. ---. . --..._ . • . ,_ ~ • • • . . 'x ' I ; -.,,,_,,__"' ";. ·-;._;,; '. ·-........ ·. 7-,..,/. / ¼1/¼f. / / / / ~\~ /ti )/ I'! '11/i Ji ! ;; i1 I . "1 , ! ! I ---I -✓ , ! ; ' ! /; I! / ! +.,.; ,J__ :'J1/ ', . ',. " / ; I ,' I ,'-:- '·,,,__ . -:~'/_ ----, __ ,_ / ' ... ,,...__ i / / ---. . " ~ , --( - ! . / ~··, . . •' / /--- ~ ! / ! . !\ !\ ! / /~ / . ; I " /• /' I ' -I 11r-l ""'Ill li._ __ / I , ,"'--..., l>' -/ ! x , .' / \ I / / ,' . . ' . ' \ ~ • I ' ' ' I • .-, ; I -· --;_ i I ! ! ' I ,.;-. ., !• i/: j ! i -- --1\-H--' i i I I,' '. :~-- A l . : ' ' __ / _.--/' /'' // ! -/ ·- / / i ~ ' i / / -/,.;' -.J / i / I ~ /i / ' - /.·:./ ii . . . /• 1/ / . . ' ' . / / / , / ' I ! \ /~µ !!/! !! \ !'1 / . . . '·' / ;, . . . . •· ·' ,,---;, i / ./ ~,' (m,/[/;'.;~\//t ! _. . ,. I I /·:/ • • J • • /: ·' i -· - -' •• ./ k /; / '-.--.·, -- -- --..:. --- -- -! ·- I -I --------7 ---'· -:·_-: I I I I -- I --- ..... -.I_ I > --..., ~ // /. I,/ _.l -_./ .. /---_,_ ~- ....._/ ---- -;-..., f _ . .,... - lllV ;, / r/ r i 'i : / / -l r l-- ..... -,- I I ♦ ♦ --~/ ~ /' .. ,. ··1 I ' . / / / / ./ / i ~-l--l--+--+-+---+--+--+--+-+--,1 _..;: ... -/ / ~ . ~ !!, ' /. .. / _,,·• . / / i/ i/ . _.- --./ -r ~l),j/ / - ::====~r=; '=~1 •=-., ,j ~ . t ~ \ '-..____~ ' \ ' f:? £, !_, \ ! L ~ !.:. [:. f, ;.-.., .. ,0 </ ' \ ' -' ' ,, ,. " !:., " " ·" i; :-. a ! !, <I /:: " • .'' !.:. - "-'' -~ 2. 6 ,, ,, .., y41·oo"E --26 53' . \~!!! ···· .... __ /\ ' \: ! ' ,, .. --_ _,,, / ~ < / ::, L ~-,, 6 {, 2 ~-, ' ' \ / ,1 ., " ' ' I ' ! ~/ ~ "~ _,_ . '. l ',_) I), ' t \·7'1./ ' ' ' ©- -~--- ',_l .,,.....~ Li . ' \/ lL·u, ' / I, • ! ! \ ,.- I I /('/:~·. .-r' , I ll ' \ I /1 · I I I \I// , I I , / I / (/ ---~-I l):/~ /I . • I .. : i_._ I / > ,-. ' ' ~ ' ' ,, 1 I I I ' ' . ,1 I 'I ·,:, ' \ \ ,1 \ ' ', 1_, I \ \ \ \ " ,, . ,, 1\ ' ---\ ·. \ ' -~- ' " \ l \ . ' '' \' \ " \ ·. \ ,_ 1\ ~-.- ' '' '' ' _>• ~\---1_-·· ~----\ I .. . ' _,_ ' ,-....;.-, I lili '' I____ ; I _.--'1 ,' : - ,- 1 }- I I I ♦ --- ! •• • ?---,! ,_j r -7 r ♦ -- I I I c---l - - ---_.J....---=----- i/ ' I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I ___ I L ♦ --- I I I ':t -' '·,; :.•_, -~-; .,/' ·--·-·~ , ·.;_ ·•,• ., ·-·' .... .. ·•_;: '\' -.- .. ,, ! L.: '"' _;•.• 1-'.>_,:_.- ._ ... -_.-,. •. '{' "•I '' l•j:, ' :1 . .. ·• •. I I 11 '1 I 11 I , I I . I J- ' .'. .• I ,~·-+, I ''j 1 ' ' ', ·• . I _-.,_ • I 1 -•: ' . -I I \·· t:: It·:·, !\ ~;, •t i . .. ';., ;'.,·.,1 ' ~-•. -.-:_;,1 . ,-? '. ;• .-.,:. -:·."' '..-.- ,_,., .. ;_1: ·-- ~ ', ''~-~ -:·1 , r•. - . •• ij ,-,_. ,_ ·-,_ ·-:- • 'c_•' I ! -~ ' ' ' - .,-- ' ,_ -;- I -· ....1... / 7, i+--, I I ~i-... I -JI-. ,_ I -1 ------!- :-.,.. ,., _., ' ' ! ' I I I _, ! .r •~ I I .rl- 1 • I I 1 li] , [~ . . / / G/1·1 ... ·· ' . I 1- 1 I ;' 11 ~ I I I I I ::Tl ,- ' I I • f[/ I m-'' .1 . ,· ' · 11 / , 1 · I I / . . _I / ·~ . ' . ' . ' ! I . i . ' . ' ~ ' ' 'I ' / !I __.--' ·-_, ... : , I ' ! I I I , I I I 1, I 11 ' I~\' ~ ' . ' . ' I I - I / ,' ' . ' ' / I / ' . ' ' / ' . ,' ~ ' . . , __ I / I'--.' I; . . . / I • . / ·' • • . ' ' ' . ' ' / I I , . ' . . . ' / / I ' ' ,' ,' I, ' ' ' ' / : I / ' ' ' . / ' ;' ,' / / / i I I __!__ I ' . ' . . I ' . ' i i ' . ' ,_ . . _j_ I / I. / 1 i ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I / ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' . ' i --,.---.1-J . ' ' ' ' ' . ...I. / I . ' ' ' . • • . ' / ,' ' ' ' ' ' / ' • • I;_____ i I / ' ' ' . ' . ' . . ' ' . . ' . ' ' . . ' ' ' ' ' ' . 1 ,' / / I / ' , I ,_ ' .... ' I I I. 1 1 """"' I ' I ~• I ' . I ,, I I ' ' '. I r +_lJ ' ' . I . I I Ii ' I ' ' I I I I ' I '1 1 1 I I . I ' ' I I ' ' I ' . ' . ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' \~ I I I' ' ' ' ' I _', • ' -...,:_.__, . -. / / ~ t---• U,/ L,I OJ ii'-: i fl[] ,(XI '(,I OJ (,I I -, ' ><; Q\ \ ' ,. '\ " ' " ' ,, ,, ' ·\. 1,~,; I ' ' . ' \ ' I ··. -I 1 1 , . '·11 111 :.>r T \ , , . ----'· -z_ 0 -I>, I"' I"'. ' v-1 o, "Z: ~ .0' o.' I f;\·-· ' ' ~-'i 'i 0 I;·. /; PROJECT llTLE: " \ \ -------- ', ·, '' " -,, f(\ )";"c;_ ,Le;_~--; " \1_ " ; \ \ \ . " '\ ' " ' ,. •\ µ CLIENT NAME: \ \---.__,,_ ) ' ' ~ ' ' . ' \ ·, I ' \ \ I , ' \ J, . \ ,,.-",--'· \ ~ -\- 1--· . __.,--.---~ ·, ~ \ ;~-1. \' !._ ', ', \ . \ \ \ \ \ \ ,._.,,,,---._ \ \ \ ~-+-~- _\t- ', ', \ \~ ','~-~ ' ' ' ' ~ \ ·,, . .• I T' ' -~- ,,. I -r--\- j-~ \--< -~- ~ ' . ' •. '1 I \ ~ ', \ -~ .. \ I ' I ' ' . ~ I -,1 ~;~L~,q; ~/]}.)_? /' --- -~- ,-~- \7_,9' i /\ 0 -- L 0 I ><;; DSDSDSDSDS143.00 (F.F.E.)MICRO.DWOVENKITCHENFAMILY AREADINING AREAOPENLAUNDRYPOWDERBEDROOM/OFFICEELEVATORHALLW.I.C.MASTER BATHMASTER BEDROOMBALCONYDISPLAYTOILETTUBSHOWERMAKE-UP139.00 (F.F.E.)SEATHISHERSSHOWERDWBROOM/VACCUMPANTRYUPPER LEVEL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"NDNGASFPGASFPA-7.01A-7.02A-7.13A-7.14WDREF.FZ.UP(146)132.43118.86154.79152.27152.35157.14155160115120125130135140145150FD 2" I.P.0.15' NW'LY OF CORNERFD 2" I.P. 0.25' W'LY OFCORNER130135150155150145140145.50(E.F.G.)UPUP(153) (153) (146) (152) (151) (150) (149) (148) (147)142.92F.S.152.10(E.F.G.)SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINESET-BACK LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINESET-BACK LINES E T - B A C K L I N E SET-BACK LINESETBACK LINE 5'-0"SIDE YARDSETBACK5'-0"SIDE YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK15'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 15'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 5'-2"SIDE YARDSETBACK5'-2" SIDE YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONTYARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK5'-2" SIDE YARD SETBACK A-8. 2 E A-8. 2 E A-8.0AA-8.0AA-8.0AA-8.0AA-8.1DA-8.1DA-8.0BA-8.0BA-8.1DA-8.1DA-8.1CA-8.1CA-8.1CA-8.1CA-8. 2 F A-8. 2 F A-8.2FA-8.2F A-8.0BA-8.0BA-8.2EA-8.2EA-8.3GA-8.3GA-8.3GA-8.3GA-8.3HA-8.3HDNOUTDOOR PATIO142.92 (F.F.E.)PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE143.00 (F.F.E.)143.00(F.F.E.)143.00 (F.F.E.)138.92(F.F.E.)DN141.00(F.F.E.)2% MIN.SLOPE 142.92(F.F.E.)DSDSDSDSDSDSDS132.43118.86154.79152.27152.35157.145155160115120125130135140145150FD 2" I.P.0.15' NW'LY OF CORNERFD 2" I.P. 0.25' W'LY OFCORNER130135150155150145140PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 03/09/2021PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 03/09/2021PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 03/09/2021PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 02/10/2020PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 02/10/2020GROUND LEVEL PLAN A-3.1JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-10D 0 E rn J' 0 D u D D u D D ~ D u D D .s D E e u D D u D D -I I I I I I I I I /__.,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I / ·. ··. 7 ( .~ . .~ '.· •. '.· .•. f. ~ .... ' .-._ .' • ,--------:-,, ,, I I -1 I I I L._ I I I I / I I ----I I I I I I !L ( I I ( ( I I ( ( I I I -I .., ( I I I r: -------r I I I I --.___ I ,-/ I I I I I I □ I I I I ( I I I [GJ] I ( I I I I I I -..! ( I ( 7 I I I I I I ( I I ( .83.53 -, .1 ·-·•. ,• ... . , . .-.<·· r· ' .J I ~x 1-.. ·I ---1---7 t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L_ ➔--I I ___ J I __J t I l I I L_ ..I L.J_ __ / / / __ _/ I I ~----I .•-:: -.. ,·. •,:. ,,, _.;. >.··:", ,_· •. '.' onoo ouoo ___ \ ________ _ \ \ I \~I I I I o o I I L _ _J L _ _J ---------------\ \ \ \ \ -\-EEl I~ ~I KD I~ ,I ♦ \ \ \ -~{_\_ ~ -·-\\.. ··. ---\ . . . . . . . .. '. ,---\ / / □ □ r 0-· .......... -□ □ - -' I [. I I I □ □ \ -,•' 0 .-z_ cP <)), (j-l .1-.1. (j-l 0~ 0 ' I ~~~~-t=.t:::::-==T.. ~ \ \\ \ \ \ ···'\"\\ \-' \ \ . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ --------.. \· .. \ --_,, _,,-\ -------' \ \ \ \ \ I I w ::::e < z >-z uJ _J 0 w e=! F >-o uJ -, 0 0:: 0.. DSDSDSDSDSDSDS2% MIN. SLOPE 2% MIN. SLOPE2% MIN.SLOPE2% MIN.SLOPEROOF LEVEL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"NSETBACK LINE SETBACK LINESET-BACK LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINESET-BACK LINES E T - B A C K L I N E SET-BACK LINESETBACK LINE 5'-0"SIDE YARDSETBACK5'-0"SIDE YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK15'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 15'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 5'-2"SIDE YARDSETBACK5'-2" SIDE YARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONTYARD SETBACK20'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK5'-2" SIDE YARD SETBACK157.50MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT157.50MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT157.00T.O.PARAPET157.00T.O.PARAPET157.00T.O.PARAPET152.00T.O.PARAPET152.00T.O.PARAPETRIDGELINERIDGELINE DSDSDSDSDSA-7.01A-7.02A-7.13A-7.14A-8. 2 E A-8. 2 E A-8.0AA-8.0AA-8.0AA-8.0AA-8.1DA-8.1DA-8.0BA-8.0BA-8.1DA-8.1DA-8.1CA-8.1CA-8.1CA-8.1CA-8. 2 F A-8. 2 F A-8.2FA-8.2F A-8.0BA-8.0BA-8.2EA-8.2EA-8.3GA-8.3GA-8.3GA-8.3GA-8.3HA-8.3H6" 0"8"1'-7"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEOPENTOBELOWROOF MATERIAL/FINISH TOBE NONREFLECTIVE LIGHTCOLORROOF MATERIAL/FINISH TOBE NONREFLECTIVE LIGHTCOLORPREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 03/09/2021PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 03/09/2021PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 03/09/20212% MIN.SLOPEPREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 02/10/2020PREVIOUSLYPROPOSED BUILDINGOUTLINE - 02/10/2020ROOF LEVEL PLAN A-6.0JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-11" D D " E ~ D D E .E J' 0 D u D D rn D ·t D LI g C "' u D D -D D ·a E e u D D e D u D D -I I I I I I I I / / / 7 I~\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I / / /, / ,' / I ··.................. I ····..... / I ····• ........ '1 --I / ,' -/ ,' ------f-' I I Ni--. I / / / / ,' / ,' / ,' / ,' /L I I I I I I 1: / I I / I ------j / / I 1--. I I I I I I I --------I I I I I I I I I I --, I I I I I I I CJ □ -----t-----t~------I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I ---I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I ~-----I I I I \ I I - ---\--- --- -----t --I I I \ I I I I I \ I I I I \ I I ·. I : ··. l 1 . \ \ \ \ ------I I I I ----------------------~t}r-,-I --\ \ \ \ \ \ \ I ' ' ' ' --. ' ' ' I I w ::::e < z >-z uJ ...J 0 w e=! F r-0 uJ -, 0 0:: 0.. 127.50LOWEST FINISH GRADE128.00HALLWAY LEVEL F.F.E129.50ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E.131.50LOWER LEVEL F.F.E.143.00UPPER LEVEL F.F.E.156.00ROOF8'-0"10'-0"2'-0" 1'-6"1'-6" 12'-0"11'-6" 6" 1'-6" 13'-0"13'-6"157.50MAX. HEIGHT1'-0" 2'-6" 1'-6"139.00MASTER BEDROOM F.F.E.10'-0"127.50GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E.1'-6"151.50MASTER BEDROOM ROOF11'-0"1'-6"152.00T.O. PARAPET30'-0" MAX. BILDING HEIGFHTWEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1LINE OF NATURALEXISTING GRADESMOOTH WHITE STUCCO FINISH -FINAL SPECS. TO FOLLOWFINIISH SURFACESALUMINUM SIDING WITH WOOD LAMINATEFINISHPAINTED METAL FASCIAPAINTED METAL CAPTEMPERED GLASS RAILING1234511111233335532531451PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESIDE YARDSETBACK LINE SIDE YARD SETBACK LINE128.00T.O.W.120.00T.O.W.126.00T.O.W.129.50T.O.W.115.00B.O.W.122.01B.O.W.126.00B.O.W.125.00B.O.W.128.00T.O.W.157.50T.O. TOWER PARAPET125.50T.O.W.124.00B.O.W.115.50T.O.W.112.25B.O.W.116.50B.O.W.127.50LOWESTFINISHED GRADE146.42T.O.R.142.92F.S.123.00B.O.W.123.50T.O.W.126.00T.O.W.126.00T.O.W.6' TALL WOOD FENCEAT PROPERTY LINE -ALL AROUNDSOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2127.50LOWEST FINISH GRADE128.00HALLWAY LEVEL F.F.E129.50ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E.131.50LOWER LEVEL F.F.E.143.00UPPER LEVEL F.F.E.156.00ROOF8'-0"10'-0"2'-0" 1'-6"1'-6" 12'-0"11'-6" 6" 1'-6" 13'-0"13'-6"157.50MAX. HEIGHT1'-0" 2'-6" 1'-6"139.00MASTER BEDROOM F.F.E.10'-0"127.50GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E.1'-6"151.50MASTER BEDROOM ROOF11'-0"1'-6"152.00T.O. PARAPET30'-0" MAX. BILDING HEIGFHTLINE OF NATURAL EXISTING GRADEROOFOVERHANGGRADE BEHINDAT HIGHESTGRADE ATBUILDING LINESMOOTH WHITE STUCCO FINISH -FINAL SPECS. TO FOLLOWFINIISH SURFACESALUMINUM SIDING WITH WOOD LAMINATEFINISHPAINTED METAL FASCIAPAINTED METAL CAPTEMPERED GLASS RAILING1234513351141PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE REAR YARD SETBACK LINE129.50T.O.W.132.50T.O.W.127.00B.O.W.127.58E.T.O.W.122.50B.O.W.125.50E.T.O.W.122.01B.O.W.157.50T.O. TOWER PARAPET153.50HIGHESTGRADE146.42T.O.R.142.92F.S.146.42T.O.W.146.58T.O.R.6' TALL WOODFENCE ATPROPERTY LINE- ALL AROUNDEXTERIOR ELEVATION A-7.0JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-12D w 0 -D ~ D D u D -D 0 JS 0 D ~ D D • D ~ D E 0 0 ~ D D 0 2 D • E 2 "" -• -I I I I I I I I I I -+ I I I I I I ~$~-~ L $ : --I I I I I I I I I I -.... I I I I I I I I I I I 1----1 I I I I I ----, I __j_ I I I I I I I I -1· I I I I I I I I / / D I I I t I I 1_ I I I I I I= I I t I I J I ---t -=1 I I I I CJ / / / I I I I I 1---1 / / / / / / / -/ / I I I I I I I I / / / ---I_ -I· I I I I I I -+-/ / ,-I I=-==~=-= 1= I c-c -=-_ :!~~::_:_r--_-_ -_ ~1j,,✓",.,,,,,,, I I 1-----, ~---=':=_i~~ I -11 I ___L -------" I / / --+-'-. --, I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I_ I I -I-I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I -1 I -1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I __j_ I I I ---, I -1 --+ I I I I I I I I I I I h / / ·----., .,,,, ·----)fr"-I l I I I I I j I I I I I L I I--t-I I I I I I I I I I I I I -+-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I __J □ □ □ □ □ □ I I I t I I _1_ I I I I I 1-I I I I I ---1 I I -□ □ □ □ -I 0 0 w ::. < z >-Q ::J u ~ F >-u w 6 a: "-- EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3127.50LOWEST FINISH GRADE128.00HALLWAY LEVEL F.F.E129.50ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E.131.50LOWER LEVEL F.F.E.143.00UPPER LEVEL F.F.E.156.00ROOF8'-0"10'-0"2'-0" 1'-6"1'-6" 12'-0"11'-6" 6" 1'-6" 13'-0"13'-6"157.50MAX. HEIGHT1'-0" 2'-6" 1'-6"139.00MASTER BEDROOM F.F.E.10'-0"127.50GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E.1'-6"151.50MASTER BEDROOM ROOF11'-0" 1'-6"152.00T.O. PARAPET30'-0" MAX. BILDING HEIGFHT 8"ROOF OVERHANG1'-4"ROOFOVERHANGSMOOTH WHITE STUCCO FINISH -FINAL SPECS. TO FOLLOWFINIISH SURFACESALUMINUM SIDING WITH WOOD LAMINATEFINISHPAINTED METAL FASCIAPAINTED METAL CAPTEMPERED GLASS RAILING1234514113'-6" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE SIDE YARD SETBACK LINE SIDE YARD SETBACK LINE NEW FINISH GRADE AT EXTERIOR FACEOF BUILDING WALLEXISTING NATURAL GRADE AT EXTERIORFACE OF BUILDING WALLLINE OF NEW REAR YARD RETAINING WALLLINE OF EXISTING NATURAL GRADE AT THEEAST FACE OF NEW REAR YARD RETAININGWALL153.50HIGHEST EXISTINGGRADE157.50T.O. TOWER PARAPET157.00T.O. PARAPET6' TALL WOODFENCE ATPROPERTY LINE- ALL AROUND6' TALL WOOD FENCEAT PROPERTY LINE -ALL AROUND127.50LOWEST FINISH GRADE128.00HALLWAY LEVEL F.F.E129.50ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E.131.50LOWER LEVEL F.F.E.143.00UPPER LEVEL F.F.E.156.00ROOF8'-0"10'-0"2'-0" 1'-6"1'-6" 12'-0"11'-6" 6" 1'-6" 13'-0"13'-6"157.50MAX. HEIGHT1'-0" 2'-6" 1'-6"139.00MASTER BEDROOM F.F.E.10'-0"127.50GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E.1'-6"151.50MASTER BEDROOM ROOF11'-0" 1'-6"152.00T.O. PARAPET30'-0" MAX. BILDING HEIGFHTNORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4ROOFOVERHANGGRADE BEYONDAT HIGHESTGRADE ATBUILDING LINE132441311SMOOTH WHITE STUCCO FINISH -FINAL SPECS. TO FOLLOWFINIISH SURFACESALUMINUM SIDING WITH WOOD LAMINATEFINISHPAINTED METAL FASCIAPAINTED METAL CAPTEMPERED GLASS RAILING12345LINE OF STAIR WALLAT PROPERTY LINELINE OF NATURAL EXISTINGGRADE AT PROPERTY LINELINE OF NATURAL EXISTINGGRADE AT PROPERTY LINELINE OF NATURAL EXISTINGGRADE AT PROPERTY LINECRAWL SPACE ACCESSCRAWL SPACE VENTILATIONPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE REAR YARD SETBACK LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE126.00T.O.W.128.00T.O.W.120.00T.O.W.127.92F.S.115.50T.O.W.112.25B.O.W.153.50HIGHESTEXISTINGGRADE157.50T.O. TOWER PARAPET133.00T.O.W.148.00T.O.W.129.00T.O.W.123.50T.O.W.6' TALL WOODFENCE ATPROPERTY LINE -ALL AROUNDEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-7.1JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-13Drawings and specificalians as instruments of service ore and shall remain lhe properly of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by \he client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the prajecl for which lhey were prepared, and nol for lhe cons\ruclion of any other projects, Any use ar reproduction af this drawing in whale or par\ by any means whatsoe\/er is slriclly prohibited except \ll'ith specific wril\en consent of En\/iroTechno Architecture. □□□ □□ 0 '\,,,,/ I I I I I I I I I I -----I + ---I I / . I ---.--1------- ---r 1 1 I I . ; I I / 1 I I j ,11 I I I j ,/ I I I I ~/' I I I I --,--- ---r~ .__,~ Iii I I ' / I I I I I // I; I I I I L _ I / ,1 _·! I I ~ : : 1 :1 ____________ t _____ . ----------· ---1--t------· -------.!./-·--------- 1 I I I I . I I ----~ I I I I I r, II /; 1 I r, II .. I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 ~~ 1 ~11 lll t I lFJc I I I / I 11 i · / ii ,;I I • /4 1 1 ' i I I ,t /( /: I □ □ / 1· I I I ;, I ' I I I I j I I I ~ ~ -rt-7---r _______________ J __ L------------~------------------ 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----I !-------------------- I,_ , I I I I ,--+-- I I I, PROJECT TITLE: I, , I,__ CLIENT NAME: 0 " / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---11 . I-- --1-...----1 -~ ---' -::: -1---11 1 I I I I I I I r ~ ", I 1 I I I I I I I ',, It-----1 ---------1 -!---~--+------------------~ \-, f '7----- I I I I I I • • I I , ! I I ',I I I ,. I I \ \ I I 11 I I I I i'i1 I I I I · 1 , I I ILµ I I I I I I I j -----+--~ 1 I I I~ I I I I . I I I I I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I ; I ' ' I I I I 1/ 1' // l/ //·/1 I I ' ,1 le 'r: / I : / ·1 ,' I ! . ' I I,' r- / I / :i ' ' ' ' ' ' 11 I .· ' I / :' 1 ~ I / ; ' I 'I I / . ~ I / / ' I / ; r- I / ,' I I , I I I / ; I I I t 11 I I I / ' j I I I / I I I 1/ I / , I it---11 I /1 I: I I / 11 ,1/~ I I / I / I I / Ii I I / I ~ / : -· 1··· ···············-··r·· , ·-· .... ' .·1 ..... 11 j I I , i I I I · I I f -_; 1 I t------,-----...--_I -_I - - - - - - - -. - - - --1---,1 1 1 j I I j / □□□ □□ I,_ , I I ; I I 1 I ; , I /I I I I I I I I I ,--+-- I,__ 1: I I I,_ , I,_ , I,_ 127.50LOWEST FINISH GRADE128.00HALLWAY LEVEL F.F.E129.50ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E.131.50LOWER LEVEL F.F.E.143.00UPPER LEVEL F.F.E.156.00ROOF8'-0"10'-0"2'-0" 1'-6"1'-6" 12'-0"11'-6" 6" 1'-6" 13'-0"13'-6"157.50MAX. HEIGHT1'-0" 2'-6" 1'-6"139.00MASTER BEDROOM F.F.E.10'-0"127.50GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E.1'-6"151.50MASTER BEDROOM ROOF11'-0" 1'-6"152.00T.O. PARAPET30'-0" MAX. BILDING HEIGFHTSECTION - BSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"BLINE OF NATURAL EXISTING GRADESTAIRSDINING AREAKITCHENHALLHALLHALL FOYERHALLCRAWL SPACEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE SIDE YARD SETBACK LINE SIDE YARD SETBACK LINE142.92F.S.133.75F.S.133.08F.S.139.67T.O.W.132.42F.S.133.92B.O.W.143.92T.O.P.6' TALL WOODFENCE ATPROPERTY LINE- ALL AROUND6' TALL WOODFENCE ATPROPERTY LINE- ALL AROUND127.50LOWEST FINISH GRADE128.00HALLWAY LEVEL F.F.E129.50ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E.131.50LOWER LEVEL F.F.E.143.00UPPER LEVEL F.F.E.156.00ROOF8'-0"10'-0"2'-0" 1'-6"1'-6" 12'-0"11'-6" 6" 1'-6" 13'-0"13'-6"157.50MAX. HEIGHT1'-0" 2'-6" 1'-6"139.00MASTER BEDROOM F.F.E.10'-0"127.50GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E.1'-6"151.50MASTER BEDROOM ROOF11'-0" 1'-6"152.00T.O. PARAPET30'-0" MAX. BILDING HEIGFHTSECTION - ASCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"ALINE OF NATURAL EXISTING GRADEMASTER BEDROOM(2) CAR GARAGEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE SIDE YARD SETBACK LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE128.00T.O.W.128.42T.O.W.127.50F.S.142.42T.O.R.138.92F.S.127.50F.G.124.42F.S.124.33E.F.G.152.00T.O. PARAPET151.00T.O. TRELLIS152.00T.O. PARAPET122.00F.S.6' TALL WOODFENCE ATPROPERTY LINE- ALL AROUNDBUILDING SECTIONS A-8.0JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-14Drawings and specifications os instruments of service are and shall remoin the property of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by the dient may be utilized only for his use and for occupying !he projed for Which they Were prepared, ond no! for the conslrudion of any other projeds. Any use or repradudian af this drawing in Whole or par! by any means Whatsoever is stridly prohibited except \ll'ith specific Written consent of EnviroTechno Archiledure. 0 "~ I I , , I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I .I I I j I I I I I I I - --- --+ r -' · .. ····· /::~-:~--~ ----~ -1--4-r -1---'--- - - • • 0 • ¾ I . . P~i "'· •. . -Y t 3.7. ·k~ I , " I I I I J .• !. T . " ~ -<c I I I I I I j j \ I I I I I I I I I I -----------------7----------------t-~--------------~---------L _______ _ I I I I I I I I I j Ii I ...... 11 11 111 ... I \ . ,: \ \ I\ 1\ I \ • I ------+---+---+----+-\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------~-------- 1 I i I I I I I I I I I . I I j I I I I I I I I - --- ----+1-+ -- --- ----~-~· ... -. --r-'-_1 -+ -1-- - - I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 ,-+--1 I I I Ill~, I I I T I, , I,. I,. , PROJECT llTLE: CLIENT NAME: 0 I I ~ I I I I I I I I I - -----~~.,¾ ~.t•-~~e~•• -~~:: ---+-- ----- --,---- -_.,__ - - - -"'-F ---~~ -\~-_l---j---Y -.. ·----. \.,_ ··--:-:_-,_ I ----+l I I I I I ________________________ _ r r-1--------------------------I II I I I I I I ~ 1 1 , , .__1 1111.1 \ I , , ···1 I I I I I I I \ ' ' I I I I I \ I I I I ' ' I I \ I I I I \ I I I I ' ' I I I I I I ' ' I I ' ' I I , I I I I I ' ' I I , I I I I ' ' I I , I I I I ' I I I I ' ' I I ' ' I I / I I I I ( ' ' I I I I I I ~ ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' ' I I ) I I I I ' ' I I ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . I 1 1 _________________ _ ----------1-1 t--i---1 -----------~------+-------------+ I I I I I I / I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' I I I I I I I , , 1 I / I I I I , I I I I ' ' I I ' ' I I / I I I I I I / I I I I I I J 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; I . _ _ _____ I I _ ----r-- - - ---I -----r--+------I I,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I, I,. , 127.50LOWEST FINISH GRADE128.00HALLWAY LEVEL F.F.E129.50ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E.131.50LOWER LEVEL F.F.E.143.00UPPER LEVEL F.F.E.156.00ROOF8'-0"10'-0"2'-0" 1'-6"1'-6" 12'-0"11'-6" 6" 1'-6" 13'-0"13'-6"157.50MAX. HEIGHT1'-0" 2'-6" 1'-6"139.00MASTER BEDROOM F.F.E.10'-0"127.50GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E.1'-6"151.50MASTER BEDROOM ROOF11'-0" 1'-6"152.00T.O. PARAPET30'-0" MAX. BILDING HEIGFHTSECTION - DSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"DPORCHPANTRYFOYERLINE OF NATURAL EXISTING GRADEROOFOVERHANGGRADE BEHINDAT HIGHESTGRADE ATBUILDING LINEPROPERTY LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE REAR YARD SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE125.50T.O.W.129.42F.S.122.33B.O.W.125.00B.O.W.153.50HIGHEST EXISTINGGRADE6' TALL WOODFENCE ATPROPERTY LINE- ALL AROUNDSECTION - CSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"C127.50LOWEST FINISH GRADE128.00HALLWAY LEVEL F.F.E129.50ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E.131.50LOWER LEVEL F.F.E.143.00UPPER LEVEL F.F.E.156.00ROOF8'-0"10'-0"2'-0" 1'-6"1'-6" 12'-0"11'-6" 6" 1'-6" 13'-0"13'-6"157.50MAX. HEIGHT1'-0" 2'-6" 1'-6"139.00MASTER BEDROOM F.F.E.10'-0"127.50GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E.1'-6"151.50MASTER BEDROOM ROOF11'-0" 1'-6"152.00T.O. PARAPET30'-0" MAX. BILDING HEIGFHTBATHBATHHALL OUTDOOR PATIODINING AREALINE OF NATURAL EXISTING GRADEROOFOVERHANGGRADE BEHINDAT HIGHESTGRADE ATBUILDING LINE3'-6"3'-0"PROPERTY LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE REAR YARD SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE127.75(E.T.O.W.)122.16(E.B.O.W.)129.50T.O.W.128.00B.O.W.127.50B.O.W.129.00B.O.W.134.08F.G.153.50HIGHESTEXISTINGGRADE129.00B.O.W.132.50T.O.W.132.00B.O.W.6' TALL WOODFENCE ATPROPERTY LINE- ALL AROUNDBUILDING SECTION A-8.1JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-15Drawings and specificalians as instruments of service ore and shall remain lhe properly of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by \he client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the prajecl for which lhey were prepared, and nol for lhe cons\ruclion of any other projects, Any use ar reproduction af this drawing in whale or par\ by any means whatsoe\/er is slriclly prohibited except \ll'ith specific wril\en consent of En\/iroTechno Architecture. 0 ,~ I I I I I . - - -----i--~ --+--- -----i--I - - - - - - - - - -----i-- - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . ----------L--l--J---------~--t------------------------------1--------- I I j I I I I I I I I I \ I I \ \ I I \ I I ' \ 11 1,11 ~ I 1',1 I I 1\ I 1 1 i \~ I I I i\ ,I I I', 1 1 I I \ 1 1 I I \\ I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~,1 \ 1\ \ I \ I I - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I . . -----------------L--1-_J ______________________________ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~-------- \ ! \ ',, I ' \ . \ '\ I t \· I t > i .\ I \, \ I I .· \ I I --I ·--,---------I ,~~•~~ -r -- -- -- -- -- --,. ·, ... I,_ , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,--+-- I, , , I,_ PROJECT TITLE: CLIENT NAME: 0 ,J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' I I ! ------ -- I---- -- ----- I I I I I 11 I I i I i ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 i',1 1 1 I j\ I I I I -----------------1 ~-------t-~------------------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ I \ I \ 'ti I \ I I I \ I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I \ I I 11 ', 11 11 , 11 11 \\ I I I I \ I I \ I 11 I I \I I I N -----------------Ll __ 1 __ J _________________________________ ./ .. ~--"~-------- 1 I j I .. I \ ~',, j 1 I I I \ ',, . I ---•' I I I I I I I I I\, I I I I I . '\ I I I I I 'i( I I I I I I I - --- --TT -.......---- ------+-- - - --I+--- - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1I ,-+--I ~ 11 I, I, , , I,_ I,_ , I I SECTION - FSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"FLINE OF NATURAL EXISTING GRADEROOFOVERHANGGRADE BEHINDAT HIGHESTGRADE ATBUILDING LINE3'-0"1'-8"9'-0" 13'-6" 15'-0"MASTER BEDROOM(2) CAR GARAGECRAWL SPACEBEDROOM/OFFICEHALLPROPERTY LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE REAR YARD SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE120.00T.O.W.126.00T.O.W.128.00T.O.W.113.67B.O.W.119.50B.O.W.125.50B.O.W.127.50B.O.W.153.50HIGHESTEXISTINGGRADE157.00T.O. PARAPET127.50LOWESTFINISHED GRADE6' TALL WOODFENCE ATPROPERTY LINE- ALL AROUND127.50LOWEST FINISH GRADE128.00HALLWAY LEVEL F.F.E129.50ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E.131.50LOWER LEVEL F.F.E.143.00UPPER LEVEL F.F.E.156.00ROOF8'-0"10'-0"2'-0" 1'-6"1'-6" 12'-0"11'-6" 6" 1'-6" 13'-0"13'-6"157.50MAX. HEIGHT1'-0" 2'-6" 1'-6"139.00MASTER BEDROOM F.F.E.10'-0"127.50GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E.1'-6"151.50MASTER BEDROOM ROOF11'-0" 1'-6"152.00T.O. PARAPET30'-0" MAX. BILDING HEIGFHT 127.50LOWEST FINISH GRADE128.00HALLWAY LEVEL F.F.E129.50ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E.131.50LOWER LEVEL F.F.E.143.00UPPER LEVEL F.F.E.156.00ROOF8'-0"10'-0"2'-0" 1'-6"1'-6" 12'-0"11'-6" 6" 1'-6" 13'-0"13'-6"157.50MAX. HEIGHT1'-0" 2'-6" 1'-6"139.00MASTER BEDROOM F.F.E.10'-0"127.50GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E.1'-6"151.50MASTER BEDROOM ROOF11'-0" 1'-6"152.00T.O. PARAPET30'-0" MAX. BILDING HEIGFHTSECTION - ESCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"ELINE OF NATURAL EXISTING GRADEROOFOVERHANGGRADE BEHINDAT HIGHESTGRADE ATBUILDING LINE3'-0"3'-0"1'-8"SMOOTH WHITE STUCCO FINISH -FINAL SPECS. TO FOLLOWFINIISH SURFACESALUMINUM SIDING WITH WOOD LAMINATEFINISHPAINTED METAL FASCIAPAINTED METAL CAPTEMPERED GLASS RAILING12345213451LAUNDRYSTAIRSDISPLAYPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE REAR YARD SETBACK LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE 126.00T.O.W.128.00T.O.W.119.50B.O.W.125.50B.O.W.126.92B.O.W.116.50B.O.W.128.00T.O.W.127.50F.G.129.50T.O.W.127.50F.S.129.00F.G.142.42T.O.R.138.92F.S.153.50HIGHESTEXISTINGGRADE120.00T.O.W.115.50T.O.W.112.25B.O.W.127.50LOWESTFINISHED GRADE6' TALL WOODFENCE ATPROPERTY LINE -ALL AROUNDBUILDING SECTION A-8.2JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-16Drawings and specificalians as instruments of service ore and shall remain lhe properly of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by \he client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the prajecl for which lhey were prepared, and nol for lhe cons\ruclion of any other projects, Any use ar reproduction af this drawing in whale or par\ by any means whatsoe\/er is slriclly prohibited except \ll'ith specific wril\en consent of En\/iroTechno Architecture. \ 0 ,~ I I I I I I ------I !-----1-------1----1---- \ \ \ \ \ 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . -----------+--~---~---------r-i------------------~--i------~-r-------- 1 I j i I I I I I \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I r, \ \ \ \ \I I \ I\ I I I I I I I I \ I \ ~ I\ ., I \ I \ I I I I \ \ I I \ \ \ \ \ \ I. ------------t----------------------------------------~ ~-------- 1 I \ I I \\ ',, I j \ 11 I \ I I '{ -1 ' I 11 I --l''i I I I I j'\ I I I -\, I ' / I I I -\ I , I I I i \, ------I !------------1---1 I --~---.~---\ I I I I ~ T , , , I,_ I,_ PROJECT TITLE: CLIENT NAME: I \ 0 ,~ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I -- - -----l -----1---____ 1_ -l _1 ___ _ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ---------+--~---i---------r-i------------------~--i---,--,-1-------- 11 I I~ I I I I I I j I I I / I I I I I I I I I . . / ir • ,/, . r, \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ \ I I ___________ 41 -~---~-----------------------------~--r--¾c 1-------- 1 I I I \ I '1'\ I -\1 11 \ ! I ' I 1 I I 'i 1 I \ ' I I j \;i □□□ I I - \ I I \ I \ \ ! 1 1 __________ -~A --jl-j -- -- -- -- --~~\.===t= I I i I I r-+-. - T □□ I, , , J,_ I,_ , SECTION - GSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"GLINE OF NATURAL EXISTING GRADEROOF OVERHANGGRADE BEYONDAT HIGHESTGRADE ATBUILDING LINE3'-0"PANTRYFOYER PORCH PROPERTY LINE REAR YARD SETBACK LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE 128.00T.O.W.129.50T.O.W.125.50T.O.W.132.50T.O.W.129.42F.S.123.00B.O.W.124.75F.S.127.42F.S.146.50T.O.R.143.00F.F.E.146.58T.O.R.142.92F.S.134.08F.G.135.08T.O.W.153.50HIGHESTEXISTINGGRADE157.50T.O. TOWERPARAPET126.00T.O.W.120.00B.O.W.123.00B.O.W.123.50T.O.W.119.50B.O.W.120.00T.O.W.119.42B.O.W.127.50LOWEST FINISH GRADE128.00HALLWAY LEVEL F.F.E129.50ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E.131.50LOWER LEVEL F.F.E.143.00UPPER LEVEL F.F.E.156.00ROOF8'-0"10'-0"2'-0" 1'-6"1'-6" 12'-0"11'-6" 6" 1'-6" 13'-0"13'-6"157.50MAX. HEIGHT1'-0" 2'-6" 1'-6"139.00MASTER BEDROOM F.F.E.10'-0"127.50GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E.1'-6"151.50MASTER BEDROOM ROOF11'-0" 1'-6"152.00T.O. PARAPET30'-0" MAX. BILDING HEIGFHT 6' TALL WOODFENCE ATPROPERTY LINE -ALL AROUNDSECTION - H1/4" = 1'-0"H127.50LOWEST FINISH GRADE128.00HALLWAY LEVEL F.F.E129.50ENTRY LEVEL F.F.E.131.50LOWER LEVEL F.F.E.143.00UPPER LEVEL F.F.E.156.00ROOF8'-0"10'-0"2'-0" 1'-6"1'-6" 12'-0"11'-6" 6" 1'-6" 13'-0"13'-6"157.50MAX. HEIGHT1'-0" 2'-6" 1'-6"139.00MASTER BEDROOM F.F.E.10'-0"127.50GARAGE LEVEL F.F.E.1'-6"151.50MASTER BEDROOM ROOF11'-0" 1'-6"152.00T.O. PARAPET30'-0" MAX. BILDING HEIGFHTLINE OF NATURAL EXISTING GRADE8'-11"20'-0"FRONT YARD SET-BACK8'-6" MIN.STEP BACKROOFOVERHANGGRADE BEHINDAT HIGHESTGRADE ATBUILDING LINE3'-0"8'-6"45.00°STEP BACK LINE FOR EVERY FOOT OFHEIGHT IN EXCESS OF 16 FEET, SHALL BESET BACK ONE FOOT FROM THE EXTERIORBUILDING FACADE OF THE FIRST STORY11'-6"ALLOWED ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONKITCHENFAMILY ROOMBEDROOMCLOSET LINEN HALLPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE REAR YARD SETBACK LINE129.50T.O.W.134.08F.G.127.93(E.T.O.W.)122.16(E.B.O.W.)EXISTING WALLTO REMAIN128.00B.O.W.129.00B.O.W.157.00T.O. PARAPET153.50HIGHESTEXISTINGGRADE127.50B.O.W.132.50E.N.G.16'-0" REQUIRED ELEVATION STEP BACK ABOVE 16'-0 @ 45°129.00B.O.W.132.50T.O.W.132.00B.O.W.6' TALL WOODFENCE ATPROPERTY LINE- ALL AROUNDBUILDING SECTION A-8.3JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:-ENMLDM-AS NOTEDPLANNING SUBMITTAL - 04/26/21 116 South Catalina Avenue – Suite 102Redondo Beach, California 90277Tel: 310/379-9716e-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comENVIROTECHNOINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:WON-HAAS RESIDENCE 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WON-HAAS RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL STAMP:C-17Drawings and specificalians as instruments of service ore and shall remain lhe properly of the design professional. Copies of the drawings and specifications retained by \he client may be utilized only for his use and for occupying the prajecl for which lhey were prepared, and nol for lhe cons\ruclion of any other projects, Any use ar reproduction af this drawing in whale or par\ by any means whatsoe\/er is slriclly prohibited except \ll'ith specific wril\en consent of En\/iroTechno Architecture. 0 '\,,,,/ --- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' -,vi----- 1 I I I I i 1 1 i . , -- -- __ __l_ ___ I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------------7,--· ■------I 'I<'-"I\ --tt--I I" -----1 .. ------ 1 ..... I I 1· / -----• I i • ~ I I 01 I " I J,. ,r--·rl" I .. .. I 11 .... I I _l ___ ~l ---- \ I I I I I I I I I 11 \: , ■ 11 11 ,: ■ 11 11 1,1 11 I I --~~-I I I I \ I I I I ~---~ I I 11 -, , ■ 11 I I I I I I ; , \ I I I I I \ I I I I I \ I I 1 I I \\ 11 I I I I \ I I 11 ', 11 11 ,~1 11 1\ -----------------~I--+--~----------------.---------------' .• • 11 I I 1 1 .1r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ ~ .. .. .· .. .. .... .... .... ... --~-------- ------+ t -+-------............ -----1 -------i --,, " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,---+--I I I I I ~ I, , , I,_ I,_ , PROJECT TITLE: CLIENT NAME: 0 " J) I I I I I I I I I I I '' --1 - - I 1-r I - - --, -- -- -- -- - I I I I I I I I 1 1 , , I / 11 I I I I / / I . . I / -----------1--J---L---------~-4-----------------~ --~~ /1 I I I I I ,\ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ;· I 14 - I I I I I I II / I / I ., I I I I I / I / I I I/ I ~ I / I I / I I .. .... I '~I I I I I I I / 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I I I I I I I I I . I I/ ./ { t --------·•. . / I . . I I I ----------+--1---~------------------------------------------1-------- ,' 1 I j I I 11 / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I -----~------------------- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,---+--I ~ I I I, I, , , I,_ I,_ , Proposed New Home 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West September 7, 2021 Ann Won and David Haas D-1 Almost Two Years to Get Here •October 3, 2019 –Our application submitted to city. No variances. •January 14, 2020 and February 1, 2021 –Notices sent to neighbors indicating the application would be reviewed at the staff level. We were told it would be approved by staff. As listed later many changes to the plans were made to reduce impacts to neighbors. •February 18, 2021 –New notice sent out due to staff recognition that grading had increased to over 1,000 cubic yards, at 1,049 cubic yards, and needed Planning Commission review. •June 22, 2021 -Two members of staff spoke that the only finding for denial by the PC was that there were safety concerns with the grading. •June 22, 2021 –Planning Commission denies application 3-2. D-2 Only Remaining Issue -Grading for Chair •June 22, 2021 -Chair Perestram indicated “I'm happy with the other parts and the improvements. But I'm still struggling with the with the steep slope question.” •June 22, 2021 –Chair Perestram indicated “Going into today, there were six items, and I thought the revised plan from last time addressed most of those. My number one issue was the drainage, I just was uncomfortable with not having any kind of of a plan for it. And I thought that that was the the people that have that expertise, adequately address that today. The other areas were I think the foliage analysis was was greatly improved with the reduction and the removal of the wildlife habitat with the the Nature Conservancy people being involved. So, to me, it really comes down to the question of grading and the steep slope” •June 22, 2021 -If Chair Perestam would have not had concerns with grading, there is no doubt the project would have been approved 3-2. D-3 We Would Have Been Approved Except for Grading •July 13, 2021 –Initial resolution stated no other reasons for denial – “…the Planning Commission not taking exception to issues related to privacy, bulk and mass, drainage, and preservation of potential habitat.” •July 13, 2021 –Planning Commission adopts Resolution of Denial with only negative finding that “…the Planning Commission has found that the proposed project would be detrimental to the public safety or other properties.” •July 13, 2021 -The resolution approved by the Planning Commission only referenced issues with grading. Please do not send us back to the Planning Commission and please rule on our application with the knowledge that the Commission was struggling with how to implement the Code section regarding grading. D-4 All the City’s Technical Experts Agree Grading is Safe •The staff has recommended at both of the two Planning Commission meetings that the project be approved, including for grading. •Our geologist has approved the grading, the City’s Geologist has approved the grading, and the City Engineer testified the site was stable. If during further review of the project by the City’s Building and Safety Department, or during inspection, the construction is found to be unsafe, corrections will be made to the satisfaction of the City’s experts who are trained, licensed, and experts in their fields and employed by the City. •The staff’s proposed Resolution approving the project in June cited their reliance on the City’s technical experts –“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.” •Technical experts are the backbone of the City’s processes, and their opinions must be respected. Any home on this lot will require grading in the area over 50% in slope, which Chair Perestam verbalized. D-5 We Modified the Project for Our Neighbors’ Benefit The design before you tonight has been extensively modified from the original one due to concerns from the neighbors and five meetings with City staff. We fully expected the home to be approved by staff, especially due to the previously approved home on this lot that was larger and more massive. Unlike most projects you see, our proposal has already gone through the following significant changes: 1)Lowered master bedroom wing 2’ to reduce massing. 2) Reduced home size: Original area: 4,905 sq.ft. Reduced Area: 4,573 sq.ft Date June 2020 Reduced Area:4,467 sq.ft. Date: March 2021 Reduced Area:4,350 sq.ft.Date: Current 3) Pushed the building 2’ south, north and west to provide space for hedge to mitigate neighbor’s concerns of privacy. 4)Added wood (alike) siding to make the façade more natural and earthy looking. 5) Changed to a light-colored roof. 6)Removed balcony from rear bedroom. 7)Raised master bedroom window to eliminate privacy concerns. 8)Created landscape plans with proposed screening. 9)Built and certified silhouette four times. 10)Addressed drainage Issues – created a complete drainage plan which has been approved by the city.D-6 All Findings Per Code Can be Made Site Plan Review : •Home is the smallest of the three homes on adjacent lots.The mass is mitigated with the use of walls and a flat roof. The home complies with all setbacks. •There are no significant privacy issues. Major Grading Application: •The grading is necessary to construct the home and reduce mass.Much of the lot is left in its natural sloped state of 34%. •The grading can be done safely as per staff and the technical experts. Minor Exception Permit •The property is steeply sloped and the higher walls are required due to “practical difficulties”. D-7 Site Plan Review -Size of the Home is Reasonable The size of the home is less than the original approval of 4,931 square feet,which includes the livable area plus the garage. The home is most comparable to the two adjacent neighbors: 30502 Palos Verdes Drive West –4,755 total square feet 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West –4,430 total square feet 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West –4,350 total square feet In the staff report for the previously approved home,staff found that there were additional mitigating issues making the size of the home acceptable.We have copied the following from the staff report: D-8 It should be noted, a majority of the surrounding residences within the immediate neighborhood , with the exception of 30502 Palos Verdes Drive West, are located on building pads (less than 5% slope) that abut a public right-of-way. Alternatrvety , the lot configuration of the subject site is unlike the lots commonly found within the immediate neighborhood. The subject property is a flag lot that is setback over 120 feet from the public right-of-way (Palos Verdes Drive West) and is not easily visible from the street. Additionally, the buildable portion of the lot is a hillside with an average slope of approximately 34%, thereby allowing a new residence to be constructed w ithin the "by- right" 16'/30' building envelope. EXTRA STORY LESS BULKY New Design Site Plan Review –Smaller Than Previous Approval D-9 I l~l .00 Site Plan Review -No Significant Privacy Impacts Far away from home and not in direct view. 30506 Entertaining Area Side Yard D-10 Site Plan Review -No Significant Privacy Impacts D-11 Proposed Home is Far Away and Does Not Face Towards Pool Site Plan Review -No Significant Privacy Impacts D-12 11 Ii 30504 PALOS VERDES DRIVE \II/EST / 30506 PALOS VERDES DRIVE \II/EST L 1 -------___ 1 -_it--'--= ,_ 1 1 •Lot is categorized as a buildable lot per RPV guidelines •Lots recorded before 1975 are allowed in extreme slopes. •Lot was created in 1967. •No adverse impact on adjacent properties. •Findings have been made by the Planning Department and City’s Experts. Major Grading Review D-13 LEGEN D ARCA W/1 pen;, ca..m llJILDltl G _JILJ:f'£ • 0,.31!l: D Bl = _J ILJ:f'[ -:ioi-im 1,7Qli1 ,, nzi J C!'£ -(MR Im 1,01 ,, - TDT/>I. :uf!., lQll.o:i Home at 30506 PVDW was Built in Error Home was built too close to property line encroaching on the setback requirements and required a Variance and Settlement Agreement to remain. 30506 PVDW 30506 built 2 feet from property line Wall built on our property. D-14 . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . ----~ -· -~llli""""-132.00 --------B.O TL&T RC ,260N · .O.W . 132.50 "'f!!!!!--13=2 =.:::......./ 29 .00 --T.o W _....B_O_ --.. . O.W . _ ~ --- --,.F-'-'=· ~o -- .O .W. 129 .5 '--EA SE M ENT A REA P ER S ETTL ~M ENJ . A~REE M EN T AS RECORDED 'A S EXHI B IT "C", ON FEB-24 20 15 • .. A S INST . N O. , • .. ' GARAGE 30506 PVDW as Currently Built D-15 Our project does not make any changes to the retaining wall or driveway that were built well inside our front yard. The purpose of this slide is to show the relationship of the structures if the 30506 structure had not been built 2’ 3” from the property line and a retaining wall halfway through our front yard. 30506 PVDW if it were built with the Correct Setback D-16 Conclusion A much larger and more massive home was originally reviewed and approved in 2008. Ours is smaller and has one less level. The same findings apply to our home as the one already approved so size and mass should not be an issue. The neighbor at 30506 PVDW has alleged privacy impacts, but their own photos have shown that the front of home faces their driveway/garage, and only a small portion of the side of the new home can be seen from their pool area. The home at 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West was built far into the setback which effectively decreases the distance between the proposed home and theirs. Our home meets or exceeds all of the setback requirements. It is not appropriate to give weight to their concerns about our proposed home’s proximity as they would be far less if their home was built correctly. The residents on Via Cambron have alleged privacy impacts, but they are nearly a football field away. Any home on this property will be visible to them. The findings for approving the home can be made. The Planning Commission’s only significant concern was the safety of the grading, which the City’s experts agree is safe.D-17 1 30504 PV Dr West Proposed Build Planning Commission Denial. Case No. PLGR2019-0025 Comments below have support of 9 neighbors initialing in agreement about concerns related to the proposed project, and in support of the Planning Commission Denial of Project. Extreme Slope Concerns still may not have been completely answered to confirm that there is not a potential threat to stability, safety, and risk of harm to surrounding properties all around this proposed extreme slope build. Is this project an unsafe build for the property owners, and the surrounding properties including the 2 houses below and the 3 houses with pools above? Support photo provided to the city and residents in 2021 Planning Commission Geotechnical Presentation by C.S.A. D-18 2 Has a complete and thorough geotechnical peer analysis by Cotton, Shires, & Assoc. been made for 30504 to determine that the lot has a 1.5 rating Factor of Safety amid 50% grade on much of the lot? Not just a conceptual approval of the project plans. Has this lot been determined to have a 50% margin of safety of failure? Support photo provided to the city and residents in recent Planning Commission Geotechnical Presentation by C.S.A. Will this project build exacerbate the hazard potential of the 30504 extreme slope lot location? - Did deep bore analysis mapping the geology occur? - Was the amount of land shift due to rise at 3mm per year accounted for when determining the Factor of Safety for the lot which was created over 55 yrs ago via cut and fill? D-19 3 - Did the cut and fill aspect of the lot creation anticipate the safety for the amount of extreme grading and the size of the house proposed now vs at the time of the lot creation? - Did the Factor of Safety consider the 3 pools and landscaping impact from the properties above 30504? - Does the conversion of the swale to an underground redirection impact the stability at the toe of the hillside? - There has been a landslide at a nearby coastal bluff property in April of 2021 (seen in first photo above), which C.S. & Associates pointed out was possibly due to irrigation creating unstable ground. Could that occur at or above the 30504 lot? - The 30504 lot appears to have had round-up or other weed abatement used over the years, which C.S. & Associates has identified an element which can reduce the long-term hillside lot slope stability and health. - Has the lot had a Cat 1 to Cat 3 geotechnical analysis performed? - Is there a design which can more safely accommodate this lot be called for by the city? - If so that might also make this lot more compatible with the 20 nearest properties. ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ D-20 4 Photos supporting comments contributed and initialed by nine neighbors on Via Cambron. Currently, virtually all of these photographs were taken in June 2021 from the privacy of one backyard, without neighbors observing the doing so due to property walls of varied height and how houses sit on lots. If the 30504 build goes in without stucco railings, then all of this photographic activity will be in clear view of the residents of 30504 from virtually all of the outdoor deck areas and much of the upstairs indoor viewing areas. If “all” stucco railings are introduced in the build, this flaw would be corrected. All parities can then experience privacy while enjoying the wildlife and the ocean view within all properties. Privacy can be preserved if “all” stucco railings are called for by the city for the hillside build. Retail Hawk nest 2021 in canyon tree just up from 30504 PV Dr West proposed project. Young Hawks appear to be continuing to use their nest to date. D-21 5 This photo of Hawk in nest from a point approx. 200’ further away from the nest than is the 30504 lot. Young Hawk on roof of house directly in front of 30504 lot in 2021. All of the neighboring terrain is deemed habitat by the local wildlife as nesting area, training ground, and eventually as hunting grounds by the resident Redtail Hawks which nests yearly in the surrounding trees. D-22 6 The two youth Redtail Hawks at the storm drain on the fencing on June 15, 2021. The storm drain is adjacent to the 30504 lot. Meanwhile, one of the parent Hawks is in the tree at the median opposite the storm drain hunting, looking out for the two young hawks, and protecting the young from being accosted by local birds, thus protecting their rights to safety and enjoyment within their established habitat. D-23 7 Young Hawk resting in nesting style on the 30504 property near silhouette June 2021. D-24 8 Young Hawk on property adjacent to 30504 on south side. Hawks use all of the hillside terrain throughout the season. D-25 9 The young hawks at pine trees one lot away from the 30504 hillside lot. June 2021. D-26 10 2 Young Redtail Hawks from 2021 Nest site identifiable by white feather presentation. Wildlife utilizes trees in PV Dr. W median, which is also within 500’ of 30504 location. D-27 11 Sage scrub that is on adjacent property to 30504. The photos of California Gnatcatchers are from the Pt Vicente area, which may include the wild areas across the street from 30504. The photos are from the Cornell University iBird website, taken by a local photographer. Protected California Gnatcatcher may be using this resource as nesting habitat. This data was omitted from the biologists report. The data above and the topic of active Redtail hawk habitat seems to have been continued to be omitted from biologists commenting on this project. D-28 12 Also, 14+ city trees have been removed from the neighboring areas in the past 10 years making the remaining habitat more critical and making the 2006 biology report more incomplete. The current biology report states that is an update of the 2006 report. In approx. 2006 during the previous Planning Staff review of that proposed hillside build many surrounding neighbors wrote letters with concerns about the risk to hillside stability, lack of neighborhood compatibility, and impact upon neighboring privacy. These comments went unanswered by the Planning Commission due to Planning Staff Director approval. That limited analysis approval expired 1 year after it was given. At that time the Planning Department Director approved the project without Planning Commission review. Now after an approx. 13yrs lapse since that limited review approval, it seems impertinent that the old approval should help any aspect of the analysis of the current proposed project. We support all of the concerns and the decision of denial by the Planning Commissioner. We also still support the concerns that the concerned neighbor’s had voiced in the previous communications. Thank you. D-29 Comments On Details Within Californians For Homeownership Letter RE: 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West, PLGR2019-0025 Regardless of the underlying merits of RPVs denial of the project or its compliance with The Act, attorneys’ fees are not recoverable by Californians for Home Ownership (the “Non-Profit”) or the property owner. The letter sent by the Non-Profit threatening the City of RPV with litigation and liability for attorneys’ fees states “if we or another non-profit organization or the applicant, is forced to litigate and prevails, the City will be required to repay our attorneys’ fees per Gov. Code section 65589(5)(k)(2)(A)(is). As discussed below, this statement is totally without merit and is not supported by the Honchariw case cited in the Letter by the Non-Profit in support of its other arguments. IN CALIFORNIA, COMMON LAW PROVIDES THAT EACH PARTY (WIN OR LOSE) BEARS ITS OWN ATTORNEYS FEES UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY STATUTE OR IF THE LITIGATION WAS IN SUPPORT AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY. Significantly, The Housing Accountability Act (the "Act") referenced in the letter provides the recovery of attorney fees by a successful litigant under the Act. The letter assumes the availability of attorneys’ fees without any discussion. Because The Act is part of a broader statute concerned with low- and moderate-income housing, it had been argued that this section required findings only for an affordable housing project. The letter correctly points out that in the Honchariw I case the court found the requirements of The Act were not limited to an affordable/low income development, but also applied to the developer’s application for approval of a market-rate residential development project. In that case, the developer then moved for an award of attorney fees under subsection 65589.5(k) of The Act, which states that the court “shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner who proposed the housing development . . . .” This time, however, the developer lost, the appellate court held that its interpretation of the term “housing development project” D-30 in Honchariw I was not controlling because the attorney’s fees provision in the Act (section 65589.5(k)) used slightly different language (“housing development” rather than “housing development project”). This difference, the court found, was important because the phrase “housing development project” is expressly defined in another part of the statute, whereas the term “housing development” is not. The court concluded that the absence of a definition of the term “housing development” rendered the attorney’s fees provision ambiguous. Turning to the legislative history, the court cited a senate analysis stating that the attorney’s fees provision strengthened current law “by requiring a court to award attorney’s fees to an affordable housing developer that has had a project unfairly denied by a local agency.” Based on this and other legislative history, the court interpreted section 65589.5(k) to authorize attorney fees only when city or county violates the statute when considering a proposed housing development containing affordable housing. The attorneys’ failure to mention the Honchariw Case re: recovery of attorneys fees in market rate cases such as this one, causes one to wonder if they were even aware this case does not involve affordable housing. Taking the attorney at his word that he has had no contact with the property owners, is this just a legal mill throwing darts hoping one hits so they can collect fees from the City. Is CFH trying to bully the City? The City of Rancho Palos Verdes needs to assess the substantive arguments made on the merits without the threat of liability for attorneys’ fees!!! The bottom line is even if some aspects of the Act may apply to this project, attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in disputes regarding market rate housing projects. The City should not be bullied with unfounded threats of liability for attorneys’ fees. D-31 Michael & Fay Davoodian 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 August 27, 2021 VIA EMAIL: jyoon(@)rpvca.gov Ms. Jaehee Yoon Senior Planner, Planning & Zoning City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re:Case No. PLGR2019-0025 Property Address: 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West Applicant: Luis De Morales, Envirotechno Architecture Inc. Owner: David Haas Dear Ms. Yoon and City Council: We oppose the application for the proposed new construction (project) at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West including the latest updates from the March Planning Commission meeting.  Our property is adjacent to the south and westerly property lines of the project site. Our home is located on the downhill slope of the project which is perched on top of an extreme slope. This project creates unnecessary risk to the stability of the hillside and inadequately addresses major water drainage concerns. This project is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character and creates extensive privacy concerns through line of sight access to nearly every one of our bedrooms, front yard, side yard and backyard including private pool, spa, barbecue and dining area. The construction of this project will block the only ingress/egress to our property cutting off regular and emergency access. Thank you RPV residents! Before addressing our specific concerns in detail, I would like to thank the RPV residents and also recap and confirm some of the events and information that has been discovered about this project since the initial Public Notice was sent by the Planning Department on January 14, 2021. •Plans were considered complete and the City had provided “conceptual approval” to the applicants. •Incorrect grading volume discovered by RPV public: Original plans showed 988 yd3 of associated grading. This coincidentally was 12 yd3 shy of the 1,000 yd3 threshold that would require Planning Commission review. Comments from the public caused the Planning Department to go back and review the site plans again. This additional review found that the site plans were incorrectly missing 61 yd3 of grading. For comparison sake, the average dump truck in the USA can carry about 10 to 14 yd3 of dirt. So this was 4 to 6 1 D-32 dump trucks worth of grading that was missing. This public finding resulted in the project requiring another public notice to be sent to surrounding neighbors on February 18, 2021 and Planning Commission review. •Planning Department submits plans to the Planning Commission with a request to approve at the March 9, 2021 meeting. •Incomplete water drainage plan discovered by RPV public : The original plans, and the plans that were updated to reflect correct grading, completely ignored an existing 6 ft wide asphalt swale that traversed the entire lot of 30504 starting at the southern property line and running north/northwest to the corner of the lot. The plans simply removed it without any attempt to address it or mitigate it. Aerial survey shows that this swale traverses through the backyards of 8 houses along PV Drive West before entering the applicants lot (see image . It is extremely concerning that these plans could get this far, and without public comments, possibly approved and built like this. Missing and inadequate water drainage combined with a lot almost entirely above 35% slope is a recipe for disaster, •Non-compliance to RPVMC discovered by RPV public : Section 17.02.040(B)(2) requires a second story setback in relation to the first story facade. The plans were non- compliant to this code and comments by the public caused a correction to the site plans. •Missing privacy features discovered by RPV public : The interior flag lot configuration combined with the steep slope requires the project to be perched on a hillside. This orientation creates direct privacy concerns to neighbors to the north, west and south west. It is noted in several staff reports that privacy mitigation was added to accommodate the neighbors to the north (the furthest neighbors in distance). This is clearly a reference to the fact that public had to review the plans and raise concerns to get any privacy mitigation in the first place. Continued concerns and recommendations have been made to mitigate privacy concerns to the closest neighbors to the southwest, however to date the recommendations have been rejected or inadequate (foliage which functionally does not create privacy). •Planning Department never raised concerns to the applicant about the steep slope: The applicants litigation and land council raised an interesting point when talking about the denial of the project; “It was quite a shock considering the prior approval in 2008 of a much larger home on the same property, the Planning Department never raising this concern over the course of 18 months working together...”. Anyone who has seen this lot in person would very quickly realize that the slope is extremely steep and may pose a concern to someone who is trying to build a house of any size, let alone a house that pushes the boundaries of setbacks in every direction. I am grateful that the RPV public has put so much time and effort into finding issues with this project. Everything found will directly improve the safety of the residents of RPV including their property, houses, family and loved ones. However, it seems like all of these issues are large enough and important enough to be found by the experts whose job it is to protect the residents of RPV. 2 D-33 Concerns on process There is one more concern about this project and process that needs to be addressed before jumping into our detailed concerns about this project. The overall sense we have gotten in interacting with the city for the past 8 months is that there is a seemingly invisible push to build this lot no matter what, even if it risks the health, safety, welfare and privacy of the immediate surrounding neighbors. It seems as though from day 1 the plans have been considered approved unless someone can find problems. But as addressed above there have been multiple large scale problems found by the public, not the experts, that could have ultimately damaged property and livelihoods of the neighbors. In certain cases where future project design details would have potential impacts to neighbors, the Planning Departments approach has been to defer that design to a later stage of the project. Commissioner Chura asked specifically at 1:14:31 in the June 22, 2021 meeting that if neighbors will be directly impacted by later design, shouldn’t they have a say in it? If these design details are delayed to a later stage then it would lead to over the counter agreements without any notification to impacted neighbors or a chance for them to express concerns. This is extremely concerning as long time residents of RPV and it would be easy to assume that other residents in our situation would feel exactly the same. This trend continued when the Planning Department drafted the project denial and completely dismissed active and relevant concerns by the public and Planning Commission writing “...despite the Planning Commission not taking exception to issues related to privacy, bulk and mass, drainage, and preservation of potential habitat”. This statement couldn’t be further from the truth, where did it come from In watching back the June 22, 2021 Planning Commission meeting there are many occasions where Planning Commission members were still concerned with privacy, balcony, neighborhood compatibility, water drainage, and biological habitat. However, these concerns were comparatively less concerning then building a 4,5000+ square foot house entirely on an extreme slope. Below are some specific discussions with timestamps from the June 22, 221 video including quotes from the Planning Commissioners themselves expressing these continued concerns that were dismissed by the drafted project denial. •1:20:30: Commissioner Chura was trying to understand how the proposed hedges/shrubs/ foliage along the south property line would provide privacy to 30506. Staff only displayed a rendering of the north property line which has similar foliage although a completely different layout with respect to the large 672 square foot roof balcony that is perched above the nearest house to the southwest. At 1:25:10 Commissioner Chura concludes his thoughts by asking “so the trees don’t provide any real comfort, privacy, mitigation from that deck?” in which case staff is silent. Why wasn’t this answered? •1:25:50: Vice Chair Perestam tries to understand how the applicant has mitigated privacy concerns by changing second story full glass railings on the balcony and roof deck to stucco. Staff informs him that the applicant received the information/request but rejected the request except for a single small section which faces to the north. This small section only mitigates privacy concerns to the furthest neighbors north. Further explanation of what is stucco and what is glass is misleading at best. Multiple times Staff points at/through glass railings stating this is stucco. When Vice Chair Perestam concludes with a final question of “so as of now it is stucco, in the plan” Staff repeatedly says “yes”. It is 3 D-34 clear that there was confusion as to what the question was referring to, but in my opinion the Vice Chair was asking about the complete railing, not just the small north facing section. In this case, staff incorrectly answered his question. •1:30:00: Commissioner Chura and Vice Chair Perestam discuss the size of the house especially on this lot given that the buildable area is made up of only 2.9% of land that is considered less then extreme (42.1% of the lot has a slope between 35-50% while 55% of the lot has a slope above 50%). •1:31:02: Vice Chair Perestam concludes the discussion above by stating “well that’s a neighborhood compatibility issue as well, as well as the steep slope and gradient”. •1:34:01: Commissioner James says “I consider these issues about privacy and even the drainage and the biological issues concerning the hawks and all, sort of as secondary to the way I feel about this project”. During the July 13, 2021 meeting to discuss and memorialize the project denial the Planning Commission changed this language to reflect the actual ongoing concerns from the RPV residents as well as the Planning Commission. The official denial states: “Issues have also been raised and testimony offered by neighbors and other interested parties related to concerns over privacy, bulk, and mass. The scope of work under the Major Grading Permit is closely related to the Site Plan Review and Minor Exception Permit. Because the Planning Commission has denied the instant application based upon the reasons set forth above, it does not reach these subsidiary issues and has not made specific findings applicable thereto.” It is extremely concerning that the Planning Department would discard and throw away all of the concerns of the public and Planning Commission so easily. Is the Planning Department looking out for the safety, health and welfare of the RPV residents or is the Planning Department pushing to approve and build everything possible? 4 D-35 Questions to Planning Department 1.Proposed roof deck is not compatible : In the Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis it shows a single surrounding property at 30502 as having a balcony/roof deck. However, rationale or comparison to show that the proposed roof deck at 30504 is comparable or compatible to the neighborhood is never shown or explained. Please provide information on how this finding is justified. ◦30502 (see Image 1) ▪Only roof deck/balcony in surrounding neighborhood ▪Faces PV Drive West without any privacy concerns to neighbors ▪Modestly sized for a couple chairs, a side table and an umbrella ◦30504 (see Image 2) ▪678 square feet ▪Occupies closest point on lot to any neighboring structure (roughly 10 feet of separation to easement) ▪Outdoor living area with 8 chair dining table, two full couches surrounding a coffee table for a sitting area, outdoor fireplace, outdoor kitchen including bar and BBQ ▪Creates unreasonable and unnecessary infringement on privacy 5 D-36 Image 1: Balcony/roof deck of 30502 has room for a couple chairs, small table and an umbrella. 6 D-37 1 --·· ,,,,,,.,...-•· ..... Image 2: Proposed balcony/roof deck of 30504 highlighted in blue. At nearly 700 square feet, this proposed roof deck does not fit within the existing neighborhood nor is it remotely comparable to the one and only balcony/roof deck in the surrounding neighborhood at 30502. 7 D-38 --------8-8§8 D FAMILY ROOM m ~ - "' ~~ --- --------------------------,. -- \ Questions to Planning Department (continued) 2.Foliage doesn’t provide privacy : In the latest plans there is a proposed strip of foliage along the south property line. Can you please show a rendering of this foliage from a southern elevation viewpoint. In previous meetings it was stated that there is RPV Municipal Code to prevent hedges from growing over 16 feet tall but no minimum height. From the plans I see the roof deck footing at 143ft in height. The entry level where the first foliage in the strip would be planted is at 129ft in height. That means a max height tree at 16 feet would extend 2 feet above the deck floor. An average sized person would stand well above the foliage preventing any relief of privacy violation to the nearest neighbors side yard and back yard including swimming pool, spa and private outdoor eating areas. This also assumes that the owners of 30504 will want to maintain the tree at a height that will potentially obstruct their ocean views (see Image 3) Another alternative perspective: If the owners at 30506 wanted to plant some privacy foliage on their property but along/parallel to the same property line, would the owners of 30504 have a right to trim/maintain the foliage if it affected their views? If they do have the right, then how is foliage a feasible solution to privacy violations in this scenario? 8 D-39 Image 3: Foliage max height of 16 feet will not provide privacy. Foliage will likely be trimmed below max height to preserve coastal/ocean views from the second story of 30504. 9 D-40 w z ::; ~ ffi I ~. -~t ------ -·,·-·-·-·-·-·-·- -·4 ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· -.:....~.:....-: .:....-: .:....-: .:....-: .:....-: .:....-: .:....-: . -: .:.... .-- ----- - --· ,·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· I I I -1- 1 -· J.. + • I J ·,· I I ---l ·-· I ---1 ,-, I I I lHf0,N,.1UkfXl111NO a.,,« I I I I • ____________ ____J - I • I • • _. _. _. _. _. _. _. _. . _. _ . _. _. _. _ . _ .L. _. _ . _. _ . _. _. _. _. _. 131 Ii) I LO'li'lRL!.Vll'IL I -· -t I lf1 ,,.,,, ~.,?~·=011 itjlilttiif ritiifriliif tlif .;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:~ -:~,::::~~ p~eserve views does riot 0 =.i:-J~'.~s" s "'';: •• ~ r O Vi d e r i Va C 1 ~ ::::"°'°'~™n ° ff~~H~•-mo SOU TH ELEVATION SCALE.. 114"•1',0" 2 Questions to Planning Department (continued) 3.Applicant is not willing to provide additional privacy by using stucco railings : Although I think it was said in previous meetings, please confirm that the applicant is aware of the public request to change the roof deck full glass railings to stucco along the the west and south sides but not interested in making this change to improve privacy. This is contrary to the applicants earlier decision to change the north facing glass railing from full glass to stucco to mitigate privacy concerns looking north to the furthest neighbors by distance (see Image 4). 10 D-41 Image 4: Green railing was switched from glass to stucco to mitigate privacy looking north. Blue railings remain full glass causing privacy concerns to the nearest house at 30506. 11 D-42 ', ', ', ,... ---------.......... _ .......... ...___ ---... ----x------.... --.... .,.------- ~:-:~-_1:~5 ~----~~~~=--------==::>:;-;,,,=~~~--.-_-)';,~~: -:::arue:~n~:1~_n1;;(, _s/cf a ~tts, 0 . 15 ·NW LYOF~~;.~-\::,:<<:~~>Ji-~-~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>~~,~~~~::~~~~~f exj_'~-~!~~~net~ih bG?r~~ remains 'i• _<:,:::,>:~:i::::~{::-1j =::===~~~~:::::::-~~~~~~~~-:=::::::===~/:):]1,~~~---~~~:~Jrt9 --P~f~a~}\~\f,iQ I at ions . , ,, ,_ ~ ----1. -----· ----/-----------t ---------f --k ~-~ ------------~ -. __ t -..,---, .. }ti\~'.:~}~·. ~1it~?•:i~~r ~;~~t~=t~=~i :· ~it~"~ 132_4 3 -----------I % ::~~~-~~-~-L-~~-=-_:~=~-\,:--;..;:-~~~;,;l~~~ $ D FIIMI_YR()()M m 30826 O N '\ PRO PERTY C ORNER ,°f< \~ \,, I: \ Finally... List of Concerns: 1. Proposed structure is perched entirely on an extreme slope 2. Water collection and re-routing is inadequate and dangerous 3. Proposed plans infringe on easement settlement 4. Privacy concerns and violation 5. Roof deck is not compatible with immediate neighborhood 6. Proposed structure is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood 7. Access to property and damage to easements due to construction 1. Proposed structure is perched entirely on an extreme slope The proposed structure is situated on a hillside lot that has gradients which are over double the value of what is defined as an extreme slope. The proposed plans maximize the house size which further contribute to a situation where the hillside can become unstable and cause public harm and property damage to the proximity of immediate neighbors including uphill and downhill properties. a.Per the RPV municipal code section 17.96.670 i."Extreme slope" means a manufactured or natural grade of 35 percent or greater. b.Per the survey and topography drawings the average gradient of the lot is above 50 percent (see Image 5). The flat portion of the lot in the north west is the only portion of the lot that is not being built on. The proposed structure sits directly on top of the most extreme slope gradients on the entire lot which are roughly 80 percent. c.The majority of the lot has a gradient above and beyond the angle of repose. i.Angle of repose is defined as: “the steepest angle at which a sloping surface formed of a particular loose material is stable” The proposed plans remove all trees, shrubs and ground cover from the lot to build the structure. Some of these trees are located on the west/southwest portion of the lot where the slope gradients are the highest. As the root systems of these large and mature pine trees, oak trees and olive trees are removed or deteriorate the instability of the hillside increases, further exacerbated by the extreme slope. The unstable hillside and the resulting damage to public health, safety and welfare is not a matter of IF but a 12 D-43 matter of WHEN. Combine this unstable extreme slope with the proposed inadequate water drainage and California earthquakes and it’s hard to imagine why anyone would want to contribute to, or live on top of, this disaster waiting to happen. The proposed plan is simply not safe. d.From the RPV municipal code, there are provisions for requesting and obtaining an Extreme Slope Permit, however it is not apparent whether an Extreme Slope Permit has been requested or granted. RPV municipal code section 17.76.060(B) defines the scope of building on extreme slopes with permits to decks and flag poles , not massive houses within 21 feet of neighboring downhill properties. Please provide status on any request or granting of an Extreme Slope Permit. e.The existing wall within the easement is labeled as a retaining wall, however it was never engineered or built to retain a house on 30504 let alone a house of the proposed magnitude. As built, this wall prevents considerable and constant debris from falling down the hillside due to the extreme slope which exceeds the angle of repose. This wall provides some relief to property damage or potential harm of people within the easement, although rocks and dirt regularly fall into the 30506 property. This wall regularly fills with rock, dirt and debris which requires regular maintenance in order for it to properly guard against damage (see Image 6). This wall should not be used as a structural component to retain any structure or water originating on the lot of 30504. f.The properties directly above the 30504 lot on Rue Langlois (30509, 30517, 30525) all have swimming pools (see Image 7) which directly rely on the stability of the slope. Damage and instability of the slope will have direct and real consequences to their homes and swimming pools as well as public health, safety and welfare. 13 D-44 Image 5: Survey and topography map showing gradient on 30504. Red highlighting corresponds to average gradient above 50 percent. 14 D-45 HU:.~~ lPERTV OORNE:R ,1,,..,o· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Average grad ient a b ove 50% Image 6: Wall constantly collects sediment, rocks and plant debris due to extreme slope. Mature trees provide hillside stability where gradients are over 60 percent, however these will be removed. 15 D-46 Image 7: Uphill slope consists of multiple properties with extreme slopes. Three individual properties have backyard swimming pools which rely on a sound and stable hillside. 16 D-47 2. Water collection and re-routing is inadequate and dangerous The swale re-routing is insufficient and introduces serious risks which will compromise the public health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties. a.The revised plans have added a catch basin at the southern property line. This catch basin converts a 6 foot wide swale (see Image 8) into a 12 inch plastic pipe. This pipe then runs underground eventually connecting back to the original swale outlet on the north/west portion of the 30504 lot. I am concerned that the sizing of the pipe is not adequate to properly carry water from such a large swale which is responsible for catching and carrying water accumulated across 8 hillside lots (see Image 9). b.The catch basin includes a grate to prevent large leaves and sticks from entering the pipe, however the hillside is covered in plant and dirt debris. The existing swale constantly fills with leaves, sediment and rocks due to the extreme slope as well as length and area in which the swale catches and carries water (see Image 10). When the catch basin grate becomes blocked due to debris, all of the swale water will fall down slope directly towards the wall on the 30506 easement (see Image 11). In the June 22, 2021 meeting the City drainage expert confirmed (at 1:17:54) that these systems would normally be designed to have an overflow prevent this situation, however the plans are incomplete in this respect. In the absence of proper drainage and overflow it is expected that the wall downhill will protect against this concentrated stream of water, especially at a slope of almost 70 percent, however it was never designed for this. Water will rush over the wall directly at the house of 30506 for as long as the grate is blocked. When the wall fails due to the concentrated water load, it will cause a catastrophic failure which will cause severe damage to the property at 30506 and potentially 30504 when the hill becomes unstable. c.The swale re-routing as proposed installs an underground pipe (roughly 40 feet in length) from the catch basin at the current swale location downhill underneath the wall on the 30506 easement to a 90 degree elbow with clean-out underneath the stamped and colored concrete driveway on the 30506 easement (see Image 12). The clean-out will require constant maintenance in order to keep it from being blocked with sediment and debris. When this 90 degree elbow becomes blocked the clean-out seal can leak or fail, especially considering the pressure of water within the extremely steep pipe uphill. Water from this failure will collect and flood the property of 30506 causing severe property damage. Worse case would cause the underground pipe to leak which will accumulate directly underneath the house of 30506 causing instability of the house and property damage. Eventually this may compromise the stability of the entire hillside. 17 D-48 Image 8: Existing swale is 6 feet wide and collects large amounts of debris from the hillside. 18 D-49 Image 9: Swale traverses 8 properties collecting water across a large area of extreme slopes. Blue highlighted area shows a portion of land which directly contributes to the flow of both water and debris towards the proposed swale re-routing of 30504. 19 D-50 Image 10: Swale partially filled with debris and sediment due to extreme slope. Swale traverses 8 individual properties before crossing into the property at 30504. 20 D-51 Image 11: Water blocked at the catch basin will flow downhill along the southern property line of 30504 directly towards the house of 30506. The wall at the bottom of the hill and the concrete pad of 30506 were never designed to withstand a concentrated stream of water as proposed. Flooding of 30506 along with potential wall failure will occur in the event the proposed catch basin overflows. 21 D-52 Image 12: Downhill pipe to re-route swale is roughly 40 feet in length at an angle roughly 70 percent. A 90 degree elbow is used at the bottom of the slope to redirect water northwards. The 90 degree elbow will clog due to sediment and debris accumulation and eventually cause leaking at the clean out or worse underground. Mature trees along the hillside provide much needed support especially in this area with some of the steepest gradients. However, plans show these as being removed which will increase the risk to slides and instability. 22 D-53 3. Proposed plans infringe on easement settlement a. The plans propose modifications and disturbances to improvements made by 30506 within an easement without any request or permission. The improvements within the easement are specifically defined and protected per the Easement Settlement Agreement (see Image 13 and 14). Image 13: Excerpt of Grant Deed of Easement 23 D-54 1. The rig ht to keep in place, maintain, constru ct, repai r, and reco nstruct , at the Davoodians' expense, in the ir current location a nd configurati ons, as ind icated in t he documents attached heret o as Exh ibit ·c: the following : (1) a reta in ing wall allegedly reconstructed by the Davoodians in July 2003 (hereafter, the "Retain ing Wall"), a portion of w hi ch is o n the Haddad Property; (2) t he concrete d ri veway constructed by t he D avoodlans adjacent to the Retaining Wall; (3) a wro ught iron fence constructed by the Davoodians wh ich abuts the end of the Reta ining Wall (the "Fence"); (4) a small dirt area adj acent to the Fence ("Dirt A re-a"); (5) the Davoodians' attached two-car garage o n the east side of the Davoodian Property ("Garage"); (6) the Davoodians' alleged convers ion of an existing garage Into habitable space; and (7) the Davoodia ns ' alleged g radin g of a slope o n the eastern side of the Davoodian Property relating to the alleged reconstruction of the Retai ni ng Wa ll , (he reinafte r, collectively referred to as the "2003 Davoodian Repa irs"). However, the Davoodians and !heir successors in interest are not perm itted to ex pa nd the footprint of any existing structures or improvements, located on or w ithin the Davoodian Easement, includi ng , but not limited to, t he 2003 Davoodian Repai rs, and/or construct or erect any add itional improvements on o r w it hin the Davoodian Easement. Image 14: Exhibit C of Settlement Agreement with Grant Deed of Easement numbered indications 24 D-55 LI N E LI N E r0UND LT&T RCE 30826 6 ~IVE WES T 17.8' WROUGHT I rouNO LT&T RCE 30826 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ~> ·o> u', S83•4 1 '3 9" 26.63' roUND LT&T IJI RCE 30826 ,,,.> J ► 0 cru' • ,,,.> (j) ,> 0' ►»1..9 J J 7 0 r- -0 ~ µ. ;:o N ON 0 -0 • l/l r, vi ::o o_ 0 ,I) ~ . ,I) -< ~ II \.l -z.. 0 ~ 4 ~ " -z. z '- ~l N8 5•37 '3 0 87.61' 4. Privacy concerns and violation a.There have been no alterations to the plans to improve privacy violations with respect to the westward views of 30504 (first floor bedrooms, first floor bathroom, master bedroom, roof deck, etc.) which look directly down and into three bedrooms of 30506. The plans remove all existing trees which currently provide privacy (and hillside stability) in these directions. Recommend that foliage be placed to preserve the privacy of both 30506 and 30504 and prevent the feeling of a concrete courtyard with two houses staring at each other. b.Roof deck railing material remains as tempered glass. A transparent roof deck railing along with the large delta of elevation creates a fish bowl feeling between someone standing on the roof deck and anyone in the front yard of 30506. Railings on other balconies were switched from tempered glass to stucco to improve privacy. Recommend a similar material change on the roof deck balcony to greatly improve privacy violation. c.Although the plans add foliage to the south property line with 30506 (only depicted in Site Plan drawing), there is no guarantee that foliage will provide, or be maintained, to create the necessary privacy. Someone standing on the roof deck of 30504 will have direct and unobstructed views into the side yard and backyard of 30506 including pool, spa and private dining areas (see Image 15, 16 and 17). The roof deck maintains a tempered glass railing around the western and southern perimeter even though the southern views are supposedly covered by foliage. In order for foliage to adequately provide privacy it would need to extend at least 5 feet above the floor elevation of the roof deck. The current plans of the southern elevation do not show any foliage so it is impossible to know what privacy this will actually provide (see Image 3 with drawn in green foliage). Recommend plan updates to understand the privacy created by planned foliage on the southern property line. d.The owners of 30504 will undoubtedly want to preserve and maintain ocean views from their roof deck. Maintaining foliage to protect privacy while preserving ocean views directly compete against each other and satisfying both concerns is likely not possible. Without an agreement that the foliage will be maintained to a minimum height for privacy improvements, this foliage addition does not improve any privacy concerns related to direct views into the backyard of 30506 including pool, spa and private dining area. 25 D-56 Image 15: View towards our side yard (private dining area) and backyard (pool, spa, barbecue, etc.) from the south/western most point of the proposed roof deck with outdoor kitchen and BBQ. 26 D-57 Image 16: View from our backyard towards the proposed structure. Blue highlighting accentuates blue silhouette flags representing the roof deck tempered glass railing. Red highlighting accentuates red silhouette flags representing the roof line. Users of the proposed roof deck will have direct line of sight to anyone using our backyard pool and spa. 27 D-58 Image 17: View from our backyard to the proposed structure shows direct line of sight between the proposed roof deck and anyone using our spa or pool. 28 D-59 5. Roof deck is not compatible with immediate neighborhood a.The roof deck was altered in the latest plans but continues to be incompatible with the immediate neighborhood. The current roof deck maintains both its massive size (678 square feet) and towering orientation at the south west corner of the lot which is the closest point on the lot to any existing structure. The proposed roof deck hovers roughly 10 feet east and 25 feet above anyone walking within the easement to ingress/egress 30506 (see Image 18 below). b.Although the previous staff report properly indicated that 30502 was the only other neighboring house with a balcony/roof deck in the immediate neighborhood, it did not include any information about how it compares to the roof deck proposed for 30504. The front balcony of 30502 which directly faces the street (PV Drive West) without any privacy issues (see Image 1). This balcony is modestly sized to fit a couple chairs, a small table and an umbrella. c.The proposed roof deck of 30504 is simply not comparable or compatible with the immediate neighborhood. With nearly 700 square feet of outdoor living space including room for an 8 person dining table, outdoor sitting area with two couches and a coffee table, outdoor fireplace and an outdoor kitchen with bar seating and BBQ (see Image 2) d.The proposed roof deck does not comply with Rancho Palos Verdes city municipal code Development Standards in the three specific sections cited below: a.17.02.030(B)(1): The following residential development projects shall be compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood: (g) The construction of, or an addition to a deck, balcony or roof deck to a second story or higher story if the total areas of the deck is 80 square feet or larger or projects more than six feet from the existing building b.17.02.030(D): Roof decks and Balconies (3) As required in Section 17.02.030(B)(1)(g), a roof deck or balcony that exceeds 80 square feet or projects more than six feet from the existing building shall not be approved unless determined to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. (4) The following standards shall apply to all permitted roof decks and balconies: (a) A roof deck or balcony shall not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy, as defined by the height variation findings discussed in Section 17.02.040 (C)(1)(e)(ix) of the occupants of abutting residences. 29 D-60 e.Please explain how the proposed roof deck/balcony complies with the city municipal codes specifically towards privacy and compatibility with the immediate and existing neighborhood. 30 D-61 6. Proposed structure is incompatible with the immediate neighborhood a.In maximizing ocean views and square footage the proposed plans in turn create a massive and unsightly towering structure perched on an extreme hillside slope visible by dozens of neighbors with privacy concerns. Multiple aspects of the proposed structure are not compatible with the immediate neighborhood including: ●Size: Largest square footage when you include the ADU (332 sq ft, currently labeled as a crawl space although it maintains windows interior and exterior doorways when this space was labeled as an ADU in the initial plans). Combine this with the large 678 square foot balcony which makes up roughly 30% of the upper floor and it quickly becomes apparent how massive this house is. ●Mass: Due to the extreme slope hillside and split level construction the front view of this house is unreasonably massive. It simply is towering over neighboring properties and an eye sore. ●Scale: The structure extends outward to most setbacks. This approach combined with the fact that it is an interior flag lot creates a situation where the structure looks simply out of place. It's as if the structure was designed for a different lot and transported and stuffed onto this lot without updates to make it fit within the lot and immediate neighborhood. b.Looking at the proposed structure elevation nearest to our residence and comparing it to the existing concrete pad of the easement and our driveway shows the following elevation deltas (see Image 18 below). ●34 foot elevation delta between the easement concrete pad and the roof line. This roof line extends into the 20 foot front setback further creating a hovering and towering structure. ●24.5 foot elevation delta of the roof deck tempered glass railing. Someone standing on the roof deck enjoying the outside kitchen would appear nearly 27 feet above someone standing on the easement or private side yard less than 10 feet away. ●21 foot elevation delta of the F.F.E. of the second floor. ●13 to 18 foot elevation delta of the first floor bedroom windows. Someone standing in an open first floor bedroom window would appear towering over someone walking on the driveway or easement of our house. ●10 foot elevation delta of the F.F.E. of the first floor. c.The proposed structure has 12 foot first floor ceiling height and 11.5 foot second floor ceiling height. To reduce the towering appearance and minimize privacy concerns, the proposed structure should reduce ceiling heights to the 8ft standard which also more 31 D-62 appropriately fits within the character of the immediate neighborhood. d.The proposed modern style with horizontal lines and flat roof are not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. e.The proposed exterior finishes include large amounts of glass, tempered glass railings and aluminum siding with wood which are not comparable or compatible to the existing and immediate neighborhood. 32 D-63 Image 18: The proposed structure of 30504 has a massive and towering presence over the immediate neighborhood which creates considerable privacy violation and does not fit within the character of the immediate neighborhood. 33 D-64 7. Access to property and damage to easements due to construction a.With a single ingress/egress easement (driveway) from PV Drive West to both 30504 and 30506 it is mandatory that the condition of this driveway is maintained and in working order to provide daily access and emergency access to the residents of both properties (see yellow highlighted easement in Image 19). Without access there is no way for the owners of 30506 to enter or exit their property. Furthermore, parking is not allowed on PV Drive West in this vicinity due to bike lanes. This means the nearest parking location is Berry Hill Drive which is roughly a thousand feet away. Please add a condition to the plans to enforce access to both properties over this driveway easement by preventing cars, trucks and machinery from parking or blocking the narrow driveway. b.The proposed plans route water runoff through underground pipes down the center of the driveway. This path creates unnecessary destruction to the driveway resulting in restricted access to the property at 30506. Since there are no alternative access paths and no street parking, please consider alternate storm drain runoff paths which do not block the only access and emergency access to 30506. c.The heavy equipment required to build the proposed structure will undoubtedly cause damage to both the driveway and likely the improvements within the easement (see Image 9 and 10). Before work is to begin where damage may occur, we request coordination to understand potential impacts. For improvements existing within easements made by and maintained by 30506 we request approval prior to any work being performed which may alter, damage or modify the improvements specified in the easement settlement (see Image 13 and 14). d.To date there has been zero coordination or information sharing by the owners of 30504 to the owners of 30506 even though the owners and son in-law of 30506 have reached out and requested information multiple times. It is easy to assume that this lack of coordination and discussion will continue which is not acceptable given the configuration of the lots and easements especially with easement improvements established and settled upon within the easement agreement (see Image 19, 13 and 14) 34 D-65 Image 19: 2015 Survey. Yellow highlighting shows single ingress/egress to 30504 and 30506. Red highlighting shows easement location from settlement (see section 3 for more details). Blue highlighting shows non-easement property of 30504. Green highlighting shows non- easement property of 30506. 35 D-66 ~ AGYB'IIN 6 IIIJAPPDN!I, CX. ).14• """"'-c,a,, -.: SGm• u• .....«i.£" t,,u'~ 900..I, c.11u)nJ -1111 CRAPHIC 9C4lE i,'" .1llfil'.El'... ll:Z.00" DAVOOOIAN P RO~ERTY LINE 2 (INGRESS E SMT) 121 00' PROPERTY LINE --~--~AVOOOIAN F'EE PROPERTY PARCEL 1 30506 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST PORTIOIII OF IOI04 AIID IOS06 PALOI VERDEi DIIIVI WIIT FlLC NO: 20U012 Wts wmno rtl:IJ.u, 11. 2014 N.omo W1U11T zo. 2t11 ~ ~ ... ~ :z :, ► E ... "' ... .. 0 ~ "' .. H A00AO FEE PRO P E R TY 3 0504 P A LOS VERDES DRIVE W EST lftSl ~lNT P(rt 5£ Ill f M!NT ~GR[fM F.t,.il ,,t-_: OAVOOOIAN ,cc PROPERTY""-----, Ii_ ~ PARCEL 3 ,.. -~. ,- ll.GAL PCSCBIPUON: POAflOttS 01 l.OT 7 9 TRACT HO 2 l9-4l MB 6'9-•l -•7 SU8V(J08'5 $[A\· fl'Al.0S VCflOC S . CALlfOAHIA e ' . .. Conclusion The RPV public has done an amazing job reading through details of this project and finding concerns and questions related to this project. However, the responsibility and onus put on the public to find these issues is downright unfair. I think all RPV residents expect the City to provide basic and fundamental protection to their interests, property, health, safety and welfare. The seemingly invisible drive to approve this project regardless of major issues and proven public concerns is eye opening and shocking. At the end of the day, the proposed structure is not compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood. It is too large, too tall and creates extensive privacy concerns to nearly all areas of our house, backyard, side yard, front yard and 4 bedrooms. The main indoor/outdoor living area is located as close to our property as possible which will further create privacy and noise issues. It is very clear that the owners are interested in maximizing their views and potential property value. However, they have ignored most requirements of the neighborhood compatibility process, including the most important aspect in our opinion; reaching out to us to share information and establish a healthy and productive relationship. Their failure to adhere to the Rancho Palos Verdes city municipal code and other governing documents is of great concern. Lastly, the proposed structure and site plan have serious issues related to extreme slope, water drainage, hillside/structural integrity, and lack of suitable access and parking for construction crews and equipment which have the potential to cause real and lasting damage to our property and house. For all of the reasons above we oppose approval of this project. Please provide us notice of your decision. Thank you, Michael and Fay Davoodian 36 D-67 August 27, 2021 TO: RPV City Council FROM: Ann Won and David Haas RE: 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West appeal Dear City Council, In preparation for the upcoming appeal regarding our new home construction on the vacant lot at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West, we thought it important to share our experience with the project by detailing the sequence of events that have led us to this meeting. Despite working hand in hand with the RPV Planning Department over the past two years, designing a home that is essentially hidden from public right of way, requires no variances, and occupies a legally formed lot from 1967, we have found ourselves appealing the Planning Commission’s ruling that we cannot build on this slope (the average slope of the buildable area has been calculated at 49.6%). This has taken us completely off guard, as nowhere in the 18 months leading up to the first Planning Commission meeting was slope ever raised by anyone at the city, including their own geotechnical consultants. Slope was not raised as even a potential issue for concern or possible basis for denial of our project. To the contrary, the slope has been deemed by multiple experts, both hired by us and by the City to be “grossly stable” and the lot as legal and buildable. Also, over the course of the last 18 months, we’ve worked extensively to comply with all reasonable requests by the neighbors. This lot obviously has been vacant for the entirety of the neighboring homes existence, and largely used for their own personal use over the years, so it is understandable their dismay in a new home being built. Even more so, our instruction to the architect was to build within the envelope defined by the code and do nothing that requires a variance. Even after multiple revisions which we will detail below, it seems the neighbors will still not acknowledge the considerable modifications we’ve made and continue to cast unsubstantiated doubt on this project in attempt to thwart any project at all. We’ve taken direction from both Staff and the Planning Commissioners and revised the plan multiple times and hired multiple experts to reach a final state that meets with their approval. Regarding the sequence of events starting from our initial purchase of the lot, we selected the Palos Verdes Peninsula as our desired retirement destination after raising our family of 4 children in San Marino/South Pasadena over the past 25 years. We identified this lot in early 2019 and were made aware by our realtor that the seller of the lot had received approval for a 3 story, 4,931 sq. foot house in 2008. Prior to purchasing the lot, we completed the following due diligence: • In February 2019 we went to the RPV Planning Department and reviewed the planning file and learned that the lot was part of a large lot that was subdivided in 1967 into three separate legal parcels, 30502, 30504, and 30506 PVDW. The remaining vacant lot was a flag lot that sits on the hill behind the other two homes and is essentially not visible from the driveway off Palos Verdes Drive West. • The file also confirmed that the seller did receive approval in 2008 for the 3 story, 4,931 sq. ft. home D-68 We asked the planner if there had been any changes to the code since 2008 that would preclude us from building on this lot. We were told there were not. Additionally, we were advised that there was a special section of the code that applied to this lot since it was legally formed in 1967 before the city was incorporated. We noted reference to this in the 2008 approval, which stated: Grading on slopes For parcels created before November 25, 1975, such as the subject lot, the Development Code allows grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35%, as long as the grading will not threaten the public health, safety or welfare. • We reviewed the December 5, 2006 soils report by Feffer Geological Consulting to confirm the slope stability, and confirmed the City’s geology consultant signed off on the safety of constructing the 4931 sq. Ft structure being proposed. We also had our own engineer analyze the Feffer soils report, which yielded no concerns about the stability of the slope. • We noted an access easement for the owners at 30506 to continue to access their illegally constructed retaining wall that was built halfway through the front yard of the vacant lot, and 12 feet over their property line. It was just an access easement and not a sale of the that piece of land. • Feeling comfortable that we could build something reasonably similar on this lot due to the 2008 approval, no change to the code, the special section of the code addressing this lot legally formed in 1967, and the documented stability of the slope, we purchased the lot in April 2019. • We engaged a local architect and began designing the project, with specific direction to build within the framework of the code and avoid any design that would require a variance. We submitted our application on October 3, 2019, with a design that was within the build by right parameters of the Municipal Code and did not require any variances. • Between October 3, 2019, and January 2020, we worked closely with the Planning Department to complete the requirements necessary for approval. Most notably was a geology study completed by Keith Tucker, Registered Professional Geotechnical Engineer, whereby additional test pits were drilled at the site. Mr. Tucker’s January 29, 2020, report indicated: “The structures and grading will be safe from future landslides, slippage and settlements under the anticipated design loading and conditions. The proposed development shall meet all requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (Chapter 15:18.090, Section 107A) and will not impose any adverse geological effect on existing adjacent land or structures.” This report was approved by the City’s Engineering and Geology consultant, Cotton, Shires and Associates, on April 27, 2020. • There was never any discussion or indication from the staff at any time that there was concern about the slope stability, or even a possibility mentioned that this would not be a buildable lot. D-69 • There has not been any expert documentation from staff, experts, or neighbors that identifies a slope stability or safety issue. • On January 14, 2020, neighbor notices sent out. Based on neighbor concerns, we worked closely with the Planning Department to modify the design so that approval could be met at the Planning Director level: • Lowered master bedroom wing 2’ to reduce massing • Reduced the square footage from 4905 sq. Ft to 4573 sq. Ft. • Pulled the north side of the structure in 2’ to provide hedge along entire property line to mitigate privacy concerns • Added wood (alike) siding to make the façade more natural and earthy looking to blend into the hillside on the north side. • Changed to a light-colored roof • Removed balcony from rear upstairs bedroom/office. • Removed and raised master bedroom window to eliminate privacy concerns • February 1, 2021 –After revising the plans, and rebuilding the silhouette to reflect the above changes, notices sent to neighbors again on February 21, 2021, once again indicating the application would be reviewed at the staff level. • February 18, 2021 – New neighbor notice sent out due to staff recognition that grading had increased to over 1,000 cubic yards, at 1,049 cubic yards, due to the addition of a retaining wall at the rear of the property by the City, and now needed Planning Commission review. • March 9, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting: Staff report recommended approval. Commissioner James raised the issue of slope and wanted to deny the project, but then changed course instead to continue the project, and the Commission provided direction to us on addressing other issues, such drainage, privacy, foliage, biology, and roof set back. • Between March 9, 2021 and the second Planning Commission meeting on June 22, 2021 the following was completed: • Moved the South side yard in 2’ to allow for privacy screening to address 30506 privacy concerns of side yard • Moved the living room wall in approximately 2’, reducing massing and overall square footage to 4,350 sq. Ft (original was 4,905 sq. Ft) • Enlisted engineering work to complete drainage plan, which was approved by the City. • Re-confirmed review and approval by the Palos Verdes Land Peninsula Land Conservancy that natural landscape or wildlife will not be adversely impacted. • Sent an email to City Manager, Ara Mihranian on June 21, 2021 informing him of our surprise over Commissioner James’ position on slope, as this was the first time that it was ever mentioned as a concern on our project. D-70 • The silhouette was once again rebuilt and re- surveyed for the third time to reflect the changes. • June 22, 2021 Planning Commission meeting: all the site plan revisions were reviewed and discussed, and praised by the Commissioners, but then slope was raised by Commissioner James who very adamantly stated that the “intent” of the code was not to allow building on steep slopes such as this. Two of the other commissioners went along with this vote, so the project was denied based on slope on a 3-2 vote. Chair Perestam, who voted to deny our project, indicated that his only remaining issue was grading. Staff asked for their findings to include in the resolution, and none were provided. • We eagerly awaited the resolution to see what possible findings could be included since none were discussed in the meeting. • The resolution stated, “To the contrary the Planning Commission has found the proposed project would be detrimental to the public safety or other properties.” There simply was no discussion of this during any of the Planning Commission meetings, in fact the administrative record includes staff’s testimony that the project was safe as evidenced by the preliminary approval of the soils and geology report by the City, the eventual review of the project plans by professionals per the Building Code, the inspection by the City of the improvements, and testimony by City staff that the slopes on the site are stable. Ron Dragoo, the City’s engineer, said: “I heard from a couple of speakers they’re concerned about the factor of safety for slope stability. And I want to just note that per the report in the section I read, it has a factor of safety of 1.9. So it’s definitely stable.” • The resolution also stated “…despite the Planning Commission not taking exception to issues related to privacy, bulk and mass, drainage, and preservation of potential habitat.” • July 13, 2021: Planning Commission meeting to vote on adoption of the Resolution of Denial. We eagerly awaited the discussion on our resolution, considering the findings stated in the resolution were not reflective of the actual discussions during the meeting. Interestingly, before the public meeting, the Planning Commission held a 90 minute closed session meeting with the City Attorney. Once they opened the public session and discussed our resolution, they requested a modification of the language to reflect there were findings beyond grading/slope to deny the project, which contradicted the original resolution which stated the Commission did not have issue with the project other than grading. And suggests the Commission’s awareness that the original finding regarding grading in the resolution was not supported by testimony at the June 22 meeting. We would ask that the Council rule on the sole remaining issue regarding our project – grading on a slope over 50%. It seems that the City has detailed processes and experts who assure that the grading will be done safely and that the finding required in the Code can be made. There are many areas of the approval process that are truly discretionary and within the expertise of the Commissioners and D-71 Councilmembers, but the safety and Code compliance of a technical matter such as grading in a steep slope is not one of them. Please approve our project. Additionally, please see specific call outs below on key findings. D-72 Privacy of the two adjacent properties, 30502 and 30506 PVDW Our proposed project includes solid fencing and landscaping strips that surround the house to both obscure the bulk and mass of the house on all three sides and provide privacy screening to the surrounding homes. #1 30506 and #2 30502 Palos Verdes Drive West are the adjacent homes directly below our lot. D-73 ' ~ 1,,,~ :~= ..... ... ::: ... ""' ... t:tpr~.- ,,. • ~I ""'""'"" ~-" """"'--~-----'- Proposed landscaping strip 30502 Palos Verdes Drive West Our plan includes privacy screening for the side yard and back yard of 30502 PVDW that would completely screen any view of the rear and side yard of this property. This is a view (below) from the rear yard of 30502 PVDW. The roofline/silhouette of our house is just barely visible in red at the top of this image. The proposed landscaping would follow the natural contours of the lot up the hill. The green line represents the height of the privacy screening and is approximately 10’ to 12’ high in this image. Everything below this line would be screened from the lot above. D-74 ~ ~·· , ... ., --- .. - ... ...,: .-- I • 1 ' ~ .. I \ i -- i -.,_ ---r 30502 \ PVDW 1 __ ......::...__ l--- \ --. .•. ; This is the view (below) from the side yard of 30502 PVDW. The silhouette of our house is outlined in red. The proposed landscaping would follow the natural contours of the lot up the hill. The green line represents the height of the privacy screening and is approximately 10’ to 12’ high in this image. Everything below this line would be screened from the lot above. . 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West Our front yard faces the front yard of 30506 PVDW. As explained in the staff reports, the primary privacy concerns are with the side and rear yard of 30506 PVDW and not the front yard area of 30506, which generally does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, our windows that share the same view as the roof deck towards the west to the ocean do not require privacy assessments since our house is within the Municipal Code’s by-right height limit. In order to address the privacy concerns for the side yard and the rear yard of 30506 our plan includes landscaping and solid fencing to provide privacy screening. The renderings below were applied to an image of the view of the side yard of 30506 from the southwest corner of the deck. This is the most prominent view from the deck of the side and rear yards of 30506. The deck is only approx. 6 feet above grade on this corner so the privacy screening does not need to be very tall to be effective. There were some questions about this by one of the commissioners in the previous Planning Commission hearing. D-75 Silhouette Rendering #1 shows the view from the southwest corner of the deck towards the side and rear yard of 30506. The silhouette post with the red top is the top corner of the railing and the pink string with the yellow ribbons represent the top of the railing. Rendering #2 shows the view from the southwest corner of the deck towards the side and rear yard of 30506 with a rendering of the railing. Rendering #3 shows the view from the southwest corner of the deck towards the side and rear yard of 30506 with a rendering of the railing and the landscaping screening in the background. We think it is clear from this image that it is possible to screen out the side and rear yard of 30506 without impairing the views from the deck. D-76 This is a rendering of the view from the seating area on the deck towards the southwest corner of the deck with the landscape screening. D-77 Slope/Major Grading Review Planning staff has recommended at both Planning Commission meetings that our project be approved, including for grading. Our geologist has approved the grading, the City’s Geologist has approved the grading, and the City Engineer testified that the site was stable with a safety factor of 1.9. If during further review of the project by the City’s Building and Safety Department, or during inspection, the construction is found to be unsafe, corrections will be made to the satisfaction of the City’s experts who are trained, licensed, and experts in their fields and employed by the City. The staff’s proposed Resolution approving the project in June cited their reliance on the City’s technical experts – “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.” Technical experts are the backbone of the City’s processes, and their opinions must be respected. Any home on this lot, large or small, will require grading in areas over 50% in slope, which Chair Perestam verbalized. • Average slope of buildable area is 49.6% (Bolton Engineering). • Lot is categorized as a buildable lot per RPV guidelines. • Lots recorded before 1975 are allowed in extreme slopes. • Lot was created in 1967. • No adverse impact on adjacent properties. • Findings have been made by the Planning Department and City’s Experts. • The safety factor on this lot is 1.9. 50% slope in red. D-78 - --- ····················--········ 5% or 20:1 or 3• \ \ l~__ff \ \ FIGURE 2 V ISUAL EXAMPLES of SLOPE (Numbers are approximate) Site Plan Review – The size of the home is reasonable Our house at 4,350 total square feet is the smallest of the three adjacent properties on Palos Verdes Drive West. • The 2008 project approval for our lot measured 4,931 SF. • Our home (30504) as proposed - 4,350 SF. • 30502 Palos Verdes Drive West – 4,755 SF. • 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West – 4,430 SF. D-79 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. E-1