CC RES 2023-016 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF VARIANCES,
COASTAL PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY ALLOWING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,181 FT2 ADDITION, CONSISTING OF A
NEW 1,041 FT2 SECOND FLOOR AND A 140 FT2 ADDITION TO THE
EXISTING 1,670 FT2 SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE FOR A NEW
TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF 2,851 FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED), A
NEW 45 FT2 BALCONY, AND ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS,
ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 125 SPINDRIFT DRIVE (CASE
NO. ZON2017-00489)
WHEREAS, on August 28, 2017, the Community Development Director conditionally
approved a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2015-00086), pursuant
to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) §15.20.040(H) thereby allowing the
landowner to proceed with the filing of the appropriate planning applications for additions to
the existing residence including a new second-story along with ancillary site improvements.
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2017, Russ Barto ("Applicant"), representing property
owners Michael and Kathy Labarbera, submitted the subject applications to the Community
Development Department.
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2017, staff completed the initial review of the
applications, at which time the applications were deemed incomplete for processing.
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2021, after several additional submittals of supplemental
information, the Applicant submitted revised project plans for review, which included a
revised second-story configuration and increased second-story setbacks along the westerly
side elevation.
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2022, based on a review of the revised plans, staff deemed
the application complete for processing.
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2022, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News, and mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project
site and to the Coastal Commission.
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the proposed project and considered public testimony. The Planning Commission
continued the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow the Applicant the opportunity to
consider project revisions in response to comments raised as part of the public hearing.
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2022, the Applicant submitted revised project plans,
which included modifications to the project design.
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2023, a public notice was published in the Daily Breeze,
and mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site and to the
Coastal Commission.
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider project revisions and unanimously adopted P.C. Resolution No.
2023-02, `conditionally approving the proposed project.
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2023, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision was filed by neighboring property owners, Michael Fabian and Sue Schmidt, at 124
Spindrift Drive and joining parties including Joseph Lay IV, Lynda Lima at 102 Spindrift
Drive, Ann Lineberger at 104 Spindrift Drive, Kevin and Allison Wolcott at 100 Spindrift Drive
and Dr. Jerry Schwartz at 105 Spindrift Drive (Appellants).
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2023, a public notice of this appeal was published in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula News and mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius
from the project site.
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
15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the project involves the
construction of a negligible expansion to an existing residence.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 2, 2023, at which time all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project involves the construction of a 1,181 ft2 addition, consisting
of a new 1,041 ft2 second floor and a 140 ft2 first floor addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 single-
story residence for a new total structure size of 2,851 ft2 (garage included); and ancillary
site improvements.
I
Resolution No. 2023-16
Page 2 of 7
Section 3: The City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning
Commission's approval of Variances, Coastal Permit, and Site Plan Review with
Neighborhood Compatibility for the project, and in connection therewith makes the following
findings based on all of the evidence and testimony provided in the staff report and at the
public hearing.
Section 4: The Variances are granted to allow the following deviations from the
development standards: reduced nonconforming front yard setback from 20 feet to 4.5 feet;
an addition of 1,181 ft2, which is over the allowable 250 ft2 within the Coastal Setback Zone;
increased lot coverage from 51.3% to 52.8%; one enclosed and one unenclosed parking
space; and reduced open space within the front yard setback from 50% to 15.6%. Based on
the findings required by RPVMC §17.64.050, i.e., extraordinary circumstances of the
property, preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant, no
materially detrimental impacts to public welfare or injurious to property and improvements
in the area, and consistency with the City's General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan can be
made. Specifically, the project site was created and improved prior to City incorporation with
a nonconforming lot size (4,180 ft2) that is substantially smaller than the required minimum
lot size (20,000 ft2) for RS-2 zoning districts. As a result, most homes in the vicinity have
nonconforming setbacks similar to those for this project. The project site is located entirely
within the Costal Setback Zone where any addition or improvements cannot be built outside
of the Coastal Setback Zone, unless a Variance is granted to expand the residence closer
in size to similar properties nearby.
Section 5: The Coastal Permit for the project in the City's Coastal Zone is approved
based on the following findings:
A. The development is consistent with Subregion 6 of the Coastal Specific Plan.
Specifically, the project will replicate the existing character and homogeneity found
within the Portuguese Bend Club neighborhood by maintaining exterior elements that
are similar to other homes in the neighborhood including a second floor with multi-
story facades, which are consistent with downslope lots located on the southside of
Spindrift Road. The development also incorporates the use of stucco finishes and a
flat roof design, which are consistent with the neighborhood and help to maintain the
character and homogeneity found within this neighborhood.
B. The development, located between the sea and the first public road, is consistent
with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. The
Applicant is not proposing to develop within a private road or outside of the property
and therefore the project will not affect any paths, trails, easements, or public rights-
of-way identified as access corridors (C-6 & C-7) within the Coastal Specific Plan.
Section 6: The Site Plan Review is approved for the proposed 1,181 ft2 of
additions and ancillary site improvements, which include a 45 ft2 balcony, an entry porch, a
III
Resolution No 2023-16
Page 3 of 7
water fountain, access stairs, and AC unit, as these plans comply with all applicable Zoning
Code requirements for the RS-2 zoning district.
In addition, the plans for additions to the residence are compatible with the character
of the immediate neighborhood in terms of the scale, architectural style, and setbacks. As
designed, the project will match the exterior finishes and roof style of other homes in the
area. There will be no apparent bulk or mass resulting from the proposed additions, as the
design of the new second-floor includes articulation and varying façade features to break
up the scale and massing of the residence. As the project site is configured as a down-
sloping lot, the residence and new second floor generally appear as single-story home as
observed from the street of access (Spindrift Drive). The proposed project will also maintain
the existing streetscape of the immediate area, which features some homes with direct
garage access.
The project will not present an unreasonable privacy infringement to neighboring
properties as the new 45 ft2 balcony is sited in a manner that orients views toward the south-
east of the project site and away from neighboring property to the west of the project site.
Section 7: The appeal is denied as follows:
A. Appeal Ground No. 1: "The Planning Commission unlawfully approved a 1,181 ft2
addition based upon its misinterpretation and misapplication of RPVMC
§15.20.040(H) which limits the maximum size of an Addition, Garage, Accessory
Dwelling, and Enclosed Patio "cumulatively"to 1,200 ft2 — but where this City has
adopted Ordinance No. 407 clarifying its intention was for Additions to be limited
to 600 ft2 and Garages to be limited to 600 ft2 (with a 1,200 ft2 cumulative project
size between the 2 components.) The Planning Commission's Approval directly
violates the law as adopted by this City."
The project site is located in the City's Landslide Moratorium Area, which requires
the approval of a Landslide Moratorium Exception permit (LME Permit) prior to
construction pursuant to RPVMC § 15.20.040. The LME Permit is issued by the
Director of Community Development based on geological considerations.An LME
Permit authorizes an Applicant to submit formal development applications for
processing.
An LME Permit was issued in 2017 under RPVMC § 15.20.040(H), and included
the baseline geological review and approval that allowed the project Applicant the
opportunity to submit the required development applications for the 1,181 ft2
addition to the Planning Division for the processing. The issuance of the LME
Permit is time-barred by Section 15.20.070 of the RPVMC, which provides a 15-
day appeal period of a decision by the Director of Community Development.
II
Resolution No 2023-16
Page 4 of 7
The current code provides that 1,200 ft2 limitation is cumulative between any
addition under Exception Category 'H' and any new garage under Exception
Category `L'. An addition can be larger than 600 ft2, provided the total project does
not exceed 1,200 ft2 including any new garage (if applicable), and all of the other
requirements are met. The language currently in RPVMC § 15.20.040(H) was
intended to loosen prior limitations by making the 1,200 ft2 number cumulative
rather than capped at a max of 600 ft2 for additions and 600 ft2 for a new garage.
The relevant language introduced in Ordinance No. 459U supersedes code
language in Ordinance No. 407 or any other prior ordinance inconsistent with the
updated language and has not changed since June 5, 2007.
B. Appeal Ground No. 2: "The Planning Commission applied [the] wrong law in the
calculation of setbacks— ignoring that structures are closer than the property line
and, here,just inches apart, when the law of this City intended setbacks to provide
for minimum distances to permit open space and light between each property and
a property line — or a structure or easement interceding those sectors — so as to
conform with its statutory purpose and fire codes."
The Planning Commission's approval of the project considered the measurement
of the side yard setback consistent with code requirements outlined in RPVMC §
17.20.040 (A)(10). The project plans and related property survey do not identify
any easements between the project site and the neighboring property at 124
Spindrift Drive.
In order to establish an easement by prescription, it must be shown that the
easement is hostile and adverse to the owner of the burdened land, among other
requirements. (Civ. Code, § 1007; Code Civ. Proc., § 321; Ditzian v. Unger(2019)
31 Cal. App. 5th 738, 743.) A use is adverse if it is without the permission of the
owner of the burdened land. (Abbott v. Pond (1904) 142 Cal. 393, 398.) The
burdened property owner's permission to use the land can be express or implied.
(Richmond Ramblers Motorcycle Club v. Western Title Guaranty Co. (1975) 47
Cal. App. 3d 747, 754.) Thus, if an owner has permitted their neighbor to use the
land, either expressly or by implication, then a prescriptive easement cannot be
established.
Staff has not been presented with any evidence to show that the encroachments
by the property at 124 Spindrift Drive on to the project site have been hostile or
adverse to the project applicants. In fact, the property owners of the project site
have informed Staff that they have no issue with the encroachment, and have not
required or demanded that the encroachment be removed, effectively permitting
it. Absent evidence presented by the owners of 124 Spindrift Drive to the contrary,
no prescriptive easement can be established in this case. No easement exists,
prescriptive or otherwise, and the setback is properly measured from the property
line.
I
Resolution No. 2023-16
Page 5 of 7
C. Appeal Ground No. 3: "Planning Commission erred in finding the project site to
be a Sloping Lot and thus misapplied the height limit/where situated on the
property."
The project site is a down-sloping lot, whereby pursuant to RPVMC § 17.02.040
(B)(1)(b) has a 16 foot/30 foot `by-right' building height envelope in which to
accommodate the proposed addition, without triggering the City's View
Ordinance. The project site is a down-sloping lot because the project site
residence is located over an area of the property that is over 5% but below 35%
in slope. Furthermore, the siting of the residence is not configured on a contiguous
level area because the design of the home includes terracing between the
different levels of the home.
D. Appeal Ground No. 4: "The Planning Commission made Findings that View and
Privacy and Neighborhood Compatibility are not to be considered when it is a
requirement of RPVMC, as voted in by the residents."
An assessment of potential privacy impacts and the project's compliance with
Neighborhood Compatibility were considered by the Planning Commission as part
of their April 26, 2022 and January 23, 2023 Planning Commission meetings. In
summary, the proposed 45 ft2 balcony was found not to result in an unreasonable
infringement of privacy, as it would be sited in a manner that orients views toward
the south-east of the project site and away from Appellant's property at 125
Spindrift Drive. The Planning Commission further found the project to be in
compliance with the neighborhood's structure size and scale; architectural design,
materials, building height, open spaces; and setbacks, and thus concluded the
proposed project met the Neighborhood Compatibility requirements. The
Planning Commission heard public testimony regarding view impairment
concerns but did not consider such impacts in their evaluation of the project
because the proposed addition will be located within the project site's 16 foot/30
foot `by-right' building height envelope for down-sloping lots.
Section 8: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement), the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Section
15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the project involves the
construction of a negligible expansion to an existing residence.
Section 9: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the City Council of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning
I
Resolution No 2023-16
Page 6 of 7
Commission-approved Variances, Coastal Permit and Site Plan Review with Neighborhood
Compatibility to construct a 1,181 ft2 addition, consisting of a new 1,041 ft2 second floor and
a 140 ft2 addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 single-story residence for a new total structure size
of 2,851 ft2 (garage included); a new 45 ft2 balcony; and ancillary site improvements on the
property located at 125 Spindrift Drive (Case No. ZON2017-00489).
Section 10: Any challenge to a final decision by the City Council on the entitlements
and the findings set forth herein must be filed within the 90-day statute of limitations set forth
in Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6 and Section 17.86.100(B) of the RPVMC.
Section 11: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of
this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in the
Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of May 2023.
41L-e&L, 4,,,LA-etA.0--
Barbara
Ferr.. •, Mayor
ATTEST:
eresa aoka, City Clerk
I
Resolution No 2023-16
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT 'A'
111 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-16
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2017-00489
(VARIANCES, COASTAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY)
125 SPINDRIFT DRIVE
General Conditions:
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant
and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have
read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Exhibit"A".
Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of
this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
III other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any
of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or
annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities
thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the
project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the Applicant
shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. Pursuant to RPVMC §17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is
authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the
conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results
as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial
changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require approval by the
I
Resolution No. 2023-16
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 6
final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate
environmental review and public notification.
6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained
in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the
residential development standards of the RPVMC, including but not limited to height,
setback and lot coverage standards.
7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause
to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained
in RPVMC §17.86.060 or administrative citations as described in RPVMC §1.16.
8. If the Applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved
project or not commenced the approved project as described in RPVMC §17.86.070
within one year of the final effective date of this Notice of Decision, approval of the
project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written
request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and
approved by the Director.
9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed
in substantial conformance with the plans stamped approved by the City with the 111
effective date of this approval.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on
the stamped approved plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal
non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal
non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the
stamped approved plans.
12. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be
kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material
used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but
not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete
asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture,
appliances or other household fixtures.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner,
to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris
resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly
basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms
I
Resolution No 2023-16
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 6
shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a
location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the
satisfaction of the City's Building Official.
14. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting
property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30
calendar days shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in RPVMC
§17.56.050(C). Unless required to protect against a safety hazard, temporary
construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than 15 days prior to
commencement of construction.
15. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, with no construction activity
permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in RPVMC §17.96.920.
During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park,
queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before
7:00 AM Monday through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance
with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do
so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject
to approval by the Building Official.
111 16. Exterior residential lighting shall comply with the standards of RPVMC §17.56.030.
No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results
in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which
such light source is physically located.
17. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the Applicant shall employ
effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
18. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT,
whichever occurs first, an earth hauling permit shall be approved by the Public Works
Department.
19. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS all applicable soils/geotechnical
reports, if required by the Building and Safety Division, shall be approved by the City's
Geologist.
20. The Applicant shall remove the project silhouette within 7 days after a final decision
has been rendered and the City's appeal process has been exhausted.
I
Resolution No. 2023-16
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 6
Project Specific Conditions:
21. This approval is for the following entitlements: I
A. 1,181 ft2 addition consisting of a new 1,041 ft2 second floor and a 140 ft2 first
floor addition to the existing 1,670 ft2 single-story residence for a new total
structure size of 2,851 ft2 (garage included);
B. 45 ft2 balcony at rear of the residence; and
C. Ancillary site improvements including new entry porch, water fountain, access
stairs and AC unit.
BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land
surveyor or civil engineer PRIOR TO THE FRAMING INSPECTION.
22. The approved residence shall maintain a 4.5-foot front, 6.5-foot east side, 5-foot west
side and 15.5-foot rear yard setbacks. SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to
be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer PRIOR TO POURING
FOUNDATIONS.
23. The overall height of the proposed addition will be 14.81 feet, as measured from the
average elevation of the setback line abutting the street of access (elev. 396.45 feet)
to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 411.26 feet); and an overall height of
22.53 feet as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev.
388.73 feet) to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 411.26 feet). HEIGHT
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer PRIOR TO ROOF SHEATHING INSPECTION.
24. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project
shall maintain a nonconforming 52.8% lot coverage.
25. No more than 50% of any existing interior and exterior walls or existing square
footage may be removed or demolished. Residential buildings that are remodeled or
renovated such that 50% or greater of any existing interior or exterior walls or existing
square footage is demolished or removed within a two-year period shall be
considered a new residence and shall then conform to all current development
standards for that zoning district and the most recently adopted version of the
California Building Code.
26. The approved A/C unit shall be screened from view from adjacent public right-of-way
with foliage or other appropriate screening.
27. The maintenance or operation of mechanical equipment, including but not limited to
AC units or pool filters, generating noise levels in excess of 65 dBA as measured
I
Resolution No. 2023-16
Exhibit A
Page 4 of 6
from the closest property line shall constitute a public nuisance in accordance to
Chapter 8.24 of the RPVMC.
28. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on the balcony and roof deck
shall not exceed a height of 8 feet or the bottom of the roof eave, whichever is lower,
as measured from the finished floor of the deck.
29. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on the balcony and roof deck
which exceed the height limits established in RPVMC §17.02.040, shall not
significantly impair a view from surrounding properties.
Landslide Moratorium Exception Conditions
30. PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE, if lot drainage
deficiencies are identified by the Director of Public Works, all such deficiencies shall
be corrected by the Applicant.
31. PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE, roof runoff from all
buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets or
an approved drainage course as deemed acceptable by the City's Engineer.
32. Pursuant to Condition No. 2, a hold harmless agreement satisfactory to the City
Attorney promising to defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless from any claims
111 or damages resulting from the requested project. Such agreement shall be submitted
to the Director PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING OR GRADING
PERMIT.
33. PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE, the Applicant shall
submit for recordation a covenant agreeing toconstruct the project strictly in
accordance with the approved plans; and agreeing to prohibit further projects on the
subject site without first filing an application with the Director pursuant to the terms of
RPVMC Chapter 15.20.
34. All landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system
approved the Director of Public Works. Irrigation for landscaping shall be permitted
only as necessary to maintain the yard and garden.
35. The sewer lateral that serves the property shall be inspected to verify that there are
no cracks, breaks or leaks and, if such deficiencies are present, the sewer lateral
shall be repaired or reconstructed to eliminate them, prior to the issuance of any
building or grading permit for the project that is being approved pursuant to the
issuance of this Landslide Moratorium Exception permit.
36. The property owner shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of
their sanitary sewer system including their sanitary sewage lateral, any sanitary
Resolution No. 2023-16
Exhibit A
Page 5 of 6
sewage lifting systems and the electricity required to power the system, and all
underground pipes associated with their sanitary sewage system under and
adjacent to,their development, and the associated fixtures within the property.
37. All other necessary permits and approvals required pursuant to this Code or any other
applicable statute, law or ordinance shall be obtained.
111
II
Resolution No 2023-16
Exhibit A
Page 6 of 6