11/27/2001 Planning Commission Agenda November, 2001, 11/27/2001, Planning, Commission, Meeting, Agenda, On October 9, 2001, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on these applications and heard testimony from the applicant and several interested parties. The direction from the Planning Commission was to require the applicant to silhouette the ridgeline(s) of the proposed house, to consider the applications for the house and the road realignment jointly, and for Staff to respond to issues raised by the public. On October 23, 2001, Staff addressed the additional issues but the silhouette had not been erected. The applicant requested the continuance of this matter to tonight’s meeting in order to complete project modifications and construction of the silhouette. At the October 23, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission also provided additional direction regarding the silhouette and asked for further clarification and analysis of the building height, structure size and lot coverage. Revised project plans were submitted to the City on November 13, 2001 and the silhouettes were completed on or about November 16, 200 The 11/27/2001 RPV Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Agenda November 27, 2001
November 27, 2001

DISCLAIMER

The following Planning Commission agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the Planning Commission at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the Planning Commission Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department.

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STAFF REPORTS



This agenda has been prepared for the orderly progression of Planning Commission business.  The Planning Commission is very interested in hearing your comments and encourages your participation in the meeting.  These agenda instructions are intended to familiarize you with how the meeting will be conducted, what to expect and how to most effectively participate in the process.

Staff Reports

Detailed staff reports on the items contained in this agenda are available from the Planning Department the Friday before the meeting and are posted for public viewing immediately prior to the meeting in the hallway outside the chambers.  The Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department is located at City Hall at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes.  The Department's public counter hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday.  The telephone number is (310) 377-6008.

Organization of the Agenda

The Planning Commission agenda is divided into the following sections:

Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items, which, unless a request has been received from the public, a Commission member or Staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the Planning Commission.
Continued Business:  This section consists of items that were held over from a previous Planning Commission meetings and for which a decision has not yet been made.
Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed public hearings which have not been previously heard by the Commission.
New Business: This section is for items that do not require a noticed public hearing.  Pursuant to adopted Planning Commission procedure, the Commission will, except under exceptional circumstances and with the consent of the majority of the Commission, adjourn its meetings on or before 12:00 a.m. and not consider new business items after 11:00 p.m., with any unfinished business being continued to the next regular, adjourned, or special meeting.
Audience Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda.  Comments must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission.  Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Audience Comments.  If action by the Commission is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda, or referred to Staff, as determined by the Commission.

Presentation of Agenda Items

Unless the Chairperson in his or her discretion should direct otherwise, the order of the presentation is generally as follows:

(a) Presentation of staff report, including any environmental analysis or recommendation.
(b) Questions of staff by members of Planning Commission.
(c) Public hearing opened.
(d) Presentation of the applicant(s) or appellant(s).
(e) Presentation of persons in favor of the requested action.
(f) Presentation of persons in opposition to the requested action.
(g) Rebuttal comments by the applicant(s) or appellant(s), if requested.
(h) Closing comments by staff.
(i) Public hearing closed.


How to Speak on an Item

 In order to speak on an item, please completely fill out a Request to Speak form and return it to the recording secretary.  These half-sheet forms (which are printed on colored paper) are available on the table in the hallway outside the chambers or from the recording secretary, who is seated on the left-hand side of the dais (the table with the blue skirt at the front of the meeting room), next to the light timer.  Requests to speak on an item must be submitted to the recording secretary prior to the completion of the remarks of the first speaker on the item.  No request forms to speak on the particular item will be accepted after that time.

 After your name is called by the recording secretary, please approach the lectern and speak clearly into the microphone.  The height of the microphone may be adjusted by hand if necessary.  Before beginning your comments on the item, please state your name and address for the record.

 The length of time that each person is allowed to speak on individual items is determined by the Chairman and is usually based on the number of speakers on the particular item.  Normally, the applicants and appellants are limited to a five (5) minute presentation and a three (3) minute rebuttal (if requested). All other persons are generally limited to three (3) minutes per person. 

 Submittal of Written Correspondence

 You may submit written evidence to the Planning Commission through the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and request that the Commission receive copies of the submitted materials prior to the meeting.  However, such written evidence must be submitted by 12:00 noon on the Monday prior to the Planning Commission meeting.  If any written evidence is submitted after the Monday noon deadline, the Commission will not consider it at the meeting.  However, it will be distributed as part of the agenda packet for any forthcoming meeting, provided that the item is continued.  This does not prevent you from reading written comments that are submitted late into the record as part of oral comments, in accordance with the time limits discussed above.

Conduct at the Meeting

The Planning Commission has adopted a set of rules for conduct during Planning Commission meetings. Although it is a very rare occurrence, the Chairperson may order from the Planning Commission Chambers any person(s) who commit the following acts with respect to a regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission:

1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Commission or any member thereof, which interrupts the due and orderly course of said meeting.
2. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, which interrupts the due and orderly course of said meeting.
3. Disobedience of any lawful order of the Chairperson which shall include an order to be seated or refrain from addressing the Commission.
4. Any other interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.

Your cooperation in making the Planning Commission meeting run smoothly and fairly for all participants in greatly appreciated.


BEGINNING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA


RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.


SCHEDULING NOTES

REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM. NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME.

PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA.

NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-4



CALL TO ORDER:

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



COMMUNICATIONS:


Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes):

Excerpts from the City Council Minutes of August 21, September 4 and 18, and October 2, 2001.

Staff:

Commission:


CONSENT CALENDAR: (NO ITEMS)



RECESS/COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) at APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M.:



CONTINUED BUSINESS:



1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53305, et al.: JCC Homes, Inc. (applicant) and California Water Service Company (owner), 5837 Crest Road (KF)

Requested Action: Allow the subdivision of a 4.99-acre area of California Water Service Company (CWSC) site into ten (10) lots for a single-family residential planned development (RPD). The proposed project includes seven (7) residential lots, one lot for a private street, one lot for the existing CWSC office and one lot for the existing underground CWSC reservoir. The CWSC office and reservoir will remain on the site. The homes proposed by the applicant include a mix of 16-foot-tall single-story and split-level homes, ranging from approximately 4,000 to 4,600 square feet of living area. The proposed residential lots would range from approximately 10,500 to 14,000 square feet. The proposed project would also require approximately 16,000 cubic yards of earth movement.

Recommendation: Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 738 to the City Council; and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, recommending conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242 to the City Council.



2. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 170/172 and GRADING PERMIT NO. 2260/2281: Marmol & Radziner (applicant) and Eric Johnson (owner), 2 Yacht Harbor Drive. (KF)

Requested Action: Allow construction of a new, 12-foot-tall single-family residence and subterranean garage, guest house, studio and swimming pool, totaling 22,715 square feet of habitable and non-habitable space, on an 18.88-acre bluff-top site in the Portuguese Bend Club community, and realign a portion of the private street right-of-way of Yacht Harbor Drive across the site in conjunction with the construction of the new residence.

Recommendation: Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, conditionally approving Coastal Permit No. 170/172 and Grading Permit No. 2260/2281.


PUBLIC HEARINGS:(NO ITEMS)



NEW BUSINESS:




3. GRADING PERMIT NO. 2191: Larry Peha (applicant) and Mr. and Mrs. Heru Wiredja (owner), 3815 Palos Verdes Drive South (AM).

Requested Action:Clarify the intent of Condition No. 19 adopted by the Planning Commission at its October 9th meeting under P.C. Resolution No. 2001-36.

Recommendation:Staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm that Condition No. 19 approved under P.C. Resolution No. 2001-36 for Grading Permit No. 2191 requires the applicant to redesign the proposed flat roof over the proposed living room rotunda and entry foyer to a pitched roof.


4. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT: City. (JR)

Recommendation: Receive a status update from the Neighborhood Compatibility sub-committee.


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:


Staff



5. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2001.


Commission


ADJOURNMENT:


The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,
December 11, 2001, 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.


AGENDA

RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.


SCHEDULING NOTES

REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM. NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME.

PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA.

NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-44



CALL TO ORDER:

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:


APPROVAL OF AGENDA:



COMMUNICATIONS:


Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes):

Excerpts from the City Council Minutes of August 21, September 4 and 18, and October 2, 2001.

Staff:

Commission:


CONSENT CALENDAR:(NO ITEMS)



RECESS/COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) at APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M.:



CONTINUED BUSINESS:









1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53305, et al.: JCC Homes, Inc. (applicant) and California Water Service Company (owner), 5837 Crest Road (KF)

Requested Action: Allow the subdivision of a 4.99-acre area of California Water Service Company (CWSC) site into ten (10) lots for a single-family residential planned development (RPD). The proposed project includes seven (7) residential lots, one lot for a private street, one lot for the existing CWSC office and one lot for the existing underground CWSC reservoir. The CWSC office and reservoir will remain on the site. The homes proposed by the applicant include a mix of 16-foot-tall single-story and split-level homes, ranging from approximately 4,000 to 4,600 square feet of living area. The proposed residential lots would range from approximately 10,500 to 14,000 square feet. The proposed project would also require approximately 16,000 cubic yards of earth movement.

Recommendation: Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 738 to the City Council; and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, recommending conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242 to the City Council.

TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2001

SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53305, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 30, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 228, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2242 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 738 (JCC HOMES, INC./CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY, 5837 CREST ROAD)

Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 738 to the City Council; and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, recommending conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242 to the City Council.

BACKGROUND

On September 25, 2001, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on these applications and heard testimony from the applicant and several interested parties. The Planning Commission’s discussions focused on a number of issues, and the applications were continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2001. On October 9, 2001, a neighborhood meeting was held at Hesse Park. The meeting was attended by Planning Staff, representatives of JCC Homes and California Water Service Company (CWSC), and sixteen interested parties from the surrounding Mesa Palos Verdes and Seaview Villas communities. At that meeting, JCC Homes indicated that many alternatives were being considered, and outlined a number of possible project modifications to address neighborhood concerns. On October 16, 2001, JCC Homes submitted revised plans for the proposed subdivision and homes. The revised plans incorporated reduced home sizes, elimination of 2-story homes, increased side-yard setbacks abutting the rear yards of homes on Stonecrest Road and retention of mature landscaping where possible. The revised plans were presented to the Planning Commission on October 23, 2001, along with Staff’s responses to several other issued raised at the previous meetings. The outstanding issues at the October 23, 2001 meeting included completion of the view analysis of the revised homes (based upon the recently-constructed silhouettes), preparation of a landscape plan for the tract, and the completion of revisions to the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to reflect the revised project description and the inclusion of a general plan amendment. These remaining issues are presented for the Planning Commission’s consideration at tonight’s meeting.

DISCUSSION

View Analysis

In previous Staff reports, Staff had suggested that the size and height of the homes proposed on Lots 4, 5, 6 and 9 could result in significant view impairment. As originally proposed, all of these lots would have been plotted with 26-foot-tall, 2-story homes. Based upon the revised project description, Lots 4, 5 and 6 are now plotted with 16-foot-tall, 1-story homes, while Lot 9 is plotted for a 16-foot-tall, split-level home. Staff has reviewed the revised silhouettes depicting the maximum ridgelines of the homes on these lots and believes that none of them will create significant view impairment. However, the residents at 29541 Oceanport Drive have suggested lowering the height of the chimney of the house on Lot 9. Although City’s Development Code allows chimneys to exceed the 16-foot-height limit, the chimney proposed for the house on Lot 9 appears to be much taller than would be necessary to meet Building Code requirements. As such, Staff recommends including a condition of approval that would limit the height of all of the chimneys in this subdivision to the minimum height necessary to comply with the City’s Building Code.

Landscape Plan

The applicant has prepared a landscape plan for the areas that will be maintained by the homeowners’ association. This plan depicts the retention of much of the existing mature foliage along the easterly boundary of the project. Additional shrubs to form a privacy screen for the homes on Stonecrest Road would supplement this foliage. The plan also depicts the replanting of the slope along the southerly boundary. As has been discussed previously, this area needs to be overexcavated and recompacted, so none of the existing mature foliage in this area is likely to remain. Although not depicted on the plan, the existing landscaping surrounding the reservoir is proposed to remain. Some residents along Scotwood Drive have expressed concern about the height of the foliage along the slope along the southerly side of the reservoir. Staff recommends including a condition of approval requiring this foliage to be maintained at a maximum height of eight feet (8’) so as to screen the homes on Lots 4 though 6 while enhancing residents views over these lots.

Revised MND

The comment period for the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project expired on October 4, 2001. However, with the applicant’s changes to the design and scope of the project, the project description and the draft MND have been revised accordingly and re-noticed. The revised MND was not re-circulated since project revisions resulted in no new significant environmental impacts. A copy of the revised draft MND is attached to this report. Please note that the revised project description includes a general plan amendment (GPA) in order to correct an apparent inconsistency between the subject property’s current land use and zoning designations (see discussion below).

General Plan Amendment No. 30

The General Plan land use designation for the project site is currently Infrastructure-Facility. This designation is reflective of the land use in place on the property at the time of the City’s incorporation in 1973. Also in 1973, the property was down-zoned for single-family residential use with a 1-acre minimum lot size because the County land use plan for the site and the City as a whole generally called for much higher residential densities than existed at the time. Through the adoption of the City’s first zoning ordinance in 1975, the property was re-zoned RS-4, which was and is consistent with the density of development in the surrounding single-family neighborhood (Mesa Palos Verdes). The portions of the site proposed for residential development are surplus areas that are no longer needed for the water company’s operations. This is due in part to the fact that the original water company facilities were envisioned to supply a much higher density of development in the City—particularly within the coastal areas—which never materialized after the incorporation and down-zoning of much of the City. However, there is still an apparent inconsistency with the General plan land use designation of Infrastructure-Facility and the site’s RS-4 zoning designation. Therefore, the approval of the proposed subdivision and residential development of portions of the California Water Service Company site shall be contingent upon the City Council’s approval of a general plan amendment that designates the portions of the site proposed for residential development as Residential 4-6 DU/acre.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On November 7, 2001, public notices for the revised project were mailed to the applicant, the property owner and one hundred seventy-two other property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. On November 10, 2001, public notice of the November 27, 2001 public hearing for Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, et al. was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. As discussed above, Staff has also prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project and has previously circulated notice of same. As of the date this report was completed, Staff had received several more letters in opposition to the project, which are attached to this report.

One of the issues that continues to be raised by the surrounding residents is the density of the proposed development. The Planning Commission also identified the size of the proposed lots relative to the proposed homes as an issue of concern at the September 25, 2001 meeting. However, when the revised project proposal—which included smaller homes with lower ridgelines and increased setbacks from many surrounding residences—was presented to the Planning Commission on October 23, 2001, the Commission provided no direction to the applicant or Staff with respect to the issue of project density. Staff took this to mean that the Planning Commission was satisfied that the project revisions addressed its concerns about the size (and number) of lots relative to the size of the revised homes. However, the Planning Commission has the ability to re-visit this issue before making a final decision on this application.

This matter is currently agendized for City Council review on December 4, 2001. Although Staff has prepared a draft P.C. Resolution to forward this recommendation at tonight’s meeting, the Planning Commission is not obligated to take action tonight simply because the matter is already on the calendar for the City Council. If the Planning Commission wishes to continue this matter again, Staff will re-agendize the City Council’s review of this project for a future date certain.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing discussion in this and previous Staff reports, Staff believes that the revised project is consistent with the required findings for approval of the tentative tract map, conditional use permit and grading permit. The applicant has reduced the size and height of the proposed homes to address many neighborhood concerns about view impacts and neighborhood compatibility. The applicant has also modified the site plan to provide greater buffers from many adjacent residences and to retain as much of the existing mature foliage on the site as possible. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of conditional approval of the proposed project to the City Council by 1) adopting P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 738; and 2) adopting P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, recommending conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242.

 

Attachments:
P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__ (MND)
P.C. Resolution N0. 2001-__ (TTM)
Revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Additional public correspondence
Minutes and Staff reports of previous Planning Commission meetings
Site and conceptual landscape plan



P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THUS MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS IN ASSOCIATION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 738, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53305, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 30, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 228 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2242 TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF A 4.99-ACRE SITE INTO SEVEN (7) RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE (1) OPEN SPACE LOT, ONE (1) PRIVATE STREET LOT AND ONE (1) LOT TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY OFFICES, ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY’S DESIGNATED RS-4 ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 5837 CREST ROAD

WHEREAS, on September 18, 2000, applications for Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228, Grading Permit No. 2242 and Environmental Assessment No. 738 were submitted to the Planning Department by JCC Homes, Inc. on behalf of the property owner, California Water Service Company, to allow the division of a 4.99-acre site into seven (7) residential lots, one (1) open space lot, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot to accommodate the existing California Water Service Company offices; and,

WHEREAS, Staff completed an initial review of the applications and plans submitted to the Planning Department and determined that additional information was needed in order to continue processing the request. Furthermore, the applicant was informed of some potential Staff concerns pertaining to views and aesthetics, thus recommending that an environmental consultant prepare the necessary environmental documents to determine the project’s impact on the surrounding environment. Subsequently, Staff deemed the subject applications incomplete on October 18, 2000 and February 8, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, on March 20, 2001 the augmented project applications and revised plans were submitted to the City and reviewed by Staff, and subsequently deemed complete for processing pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act on April 17, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53305 General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review for twenty-one (21) days between September 13, 2001 and October 4, 2001, and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and,

WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigation Monitoring program has been prepared, and is attached to the Environmental Assessment No. 738 and this Resolution as Exhibit ‘A’; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 25, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, at the September 25, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff and the applicant to further investigate design alternatives to address concerns pertaining to density, structure size, setback buffers and view impacts with the applicant and the surrounding neighbors. A unanimous motion to continue action on the proposed tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to October 23, 2001 was passed by the Commission; and,

WHEREAS, on October 9, 2001 Staff met with the applicant and surrounding neighbors to address the concerns identified at the September 25, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. At that time, possible project revisions were discussed by the applicant and presented to Staff and the neighbors, who collectively addressed the concerns pertaining to density, structure size, setback buffers and view impacts; and,

WHEREAS, on October 16, 2001, the applicant submitted revised project plans to the City in order to address the concerns raised by Staff and the neighbors; and,

WHEREAS, at the October 23, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission was presented with the revised project plans and heard additional testimony from the neighbors. A unanimous motion to continue action on the proposed tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to October 23, 2001 was passed by the Commission; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing a new notice pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 27, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: The subject applications would permit the subdivision of a 4.99-acre site into ten (10) lots, consisting of seven (7) residential lots, one (1) open space lot, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot for the remaining California Water Service Company office. The proposed residential lots will maintain a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum contiguous lot area of 3,300 square feet, as required by the City’s Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance for lots located within the designated RS-4 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district. As proposed, six (6) of the lots will maintain access off Scotwood Drive via a new private street, and the seventh residential lot will have direct access off Scotwood Drive, an existing public street. The subject property is currently improved with the existing California Water Service Company office, reservoir, maintenance yard, carport and parking lot. A portion of the existing carport will be demolished prior to recordation of the final tract map. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision requires 16,000 cubic yards of associated grading, consisting of 14,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill, of which 12,000 cubic yards will be exported from the site. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is permitted within the RS-4 zoning district, and would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. In making this finding, the Planning Commission considered the project's mitigation measures that address the issues of Land Use and Planning, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology, Noise, Traffic/Circulation, Utilities, and Water Quality.

Section 2: The creation of seven (7) single-family residential lots is consistent with the type of land use and density identified in the City’s General Plan, Residential 46 Dwelling Units per Acre; and, as conditioned, is consistent with the City’s Development Code for projects within the RS-4 zoning district, and will not significantly impact the required land use.

Section 3: The proposed project will create seven (7) single-family residential lots that when developed will not alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population in the area above what is forecast in adopted City plans and policies, nor will the project affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing beyond what will developed. The project will not create a significant additional demand for fire or police protection, or other governmental services.

Section 4: The subdivision and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract; and that the dedications required by local ordinance are shown on the Tentative Tract Map and/or are set forth in the attached conditions of approval.

Section 5: That the discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Quality Control Board.

Section 6: The project requires 16,000 cubic yards of associated grading to prepare the site for residential development. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project will not result in significant adverse affects to topography; destruction, covering, or modification of unique geologic or physical features; impacts to archeological or paleontological resources; or expose persons to seismic ground failure, landslides, or other known hazards; affect any plant or animal species or result in the removal of any sensitive plant life or animal life; or create a wasteful or inefficient use of the energy already being consumed on the site. Although on-site grading is proposed, a geotechnical report addressing the scope of the project grading has been conceptually approved by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer in the planning stage, further reports will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Building Official and the City’s geotechnical consultant prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Furthermore, the geotechnical report shall provide the developer with applicable conditions for which the project shall be constructed, along with other conditions that the City’s Building Official and City’s geotechnical consultant find necessary to ensure the project is constructed in a manner that does not jeopardize the public’s health, safety and welfare. As such, the mitigation measures will ensure that the proposed project will not cause any significant geological impacts.

Section 7: The proposed project will not change the current, the course or the direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters, since the project site is not located in such a setting. Although there may be slight changes in the absorption rates, drainage patterns, and surface run-off on the subject site as a result of the proposed project. A proposed drainage plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval pertaining to the implementation of mitigation measures that address potential impacts to water patterns. Furthermore, in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, as it pertains to implementation strategies that reduce stormwater runoff. As such, the Planning Commission finds that such conditions will ensure that water patterns will not significantly impact the surrounding environment.

Section 8: That the proposed land division will not generate traffic volumes that create substantial impacts to circulation patterns, parking capacity, or traffic congestion, as discussed in the Initial Study.

Section 9: Although the construction of the proposed project is anticipated to generate noise levels uncommon to the surrounding environment, such noise will be temporary in nature and that the City has imposed conditions, in accordance with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ Municipal Code, that limits construction between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Mondays through Saturdays, with no construction permitted on Sundays and legal holidays (as identified in the City’s Municipal Code). Furthermore, mitigation measures require that all construction equipment engines be equipped with standard noise insulating features and are tuned to the manufacturer’s recommendations. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the mitigation measures imposed will ensure that noise levels do not adversely impact surrounding properties.

Section 10: With respect to aesthetics, the City’s Development Code requires new residential construction be developed in a manner that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, as it pertains to size, mass and bulk, architectural style and front yard setbacks, in order to preserve the character of established neighborhoods. The seven (7) homes proposed as a part of this project have been reviewed for compatibility with the character of the surrounding Mesa Palos Verdes neighborhood. All of the homes will comply with the 20-foot front-yard setback requirement, which applies throughout the surrounding neighborhood. The homes will also display a variety of architectural styles and materials that complement the architecture of nearby homes. Although the proposed homes are generally larger than the surrounding homes in Mesa Palos Verdes, their size has been reduced by the applicant in response to neighborhood concerns. The six (6) homes on the cul-de-sac will form their own "neighborhood" that will be internally consistent with itself. The seventh home, which faces on to Scotwood Drive, will be seen in direct context with adjacent residences, so it has been re-designed to minimize its apparent bulk and mass as viewed from the street. With respect to scenic vistas from surrounding properties, the project has been modified to limit all seven (7) homes to sixteen feet (16’) in height, as measured from the finished grade elevations, so that ocean views are preserved and protected. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed conditions will protect views of the Pacific Ocean and Santa Catalina Island from surrounding properties.

Section 11: Grading of the site may cause some impacts to air quality as a result of air-borne dust particles. However, to ensure that there will be no significant impacts, mitigation measures have been added that require the applicant take specific actions to control air-borne dust particles.

Section 12: For reasons discussed in the Initial Study, which is incorporated herein by reference, the project will not have any potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals, nor would the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

Section 13: The applicant has consulted the lists prepared pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and has submitted a signed statement indicating whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included on any such list, and has specified any such list. The Lead Agency has consulted the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, and has certified that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not included in these lists of known Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites as compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Section 14: The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit ‘A’, attached hereto, are incorporated into the scope of the proposed project. These measures will reduce potential significant impacts identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant level.

Section 15: For the foregoing reasons and based on its independent review and evaluation of the information and findings contained in the Initial Study, Staff Reports, minutes, and records of the proceedings, the Planning Commission has determined that the project as conditioned and mitigated will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration making certain environmental findings in association with Environmental Assessment No. 738, Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242 to allow the subdivision of a 4.99-acre site into seven (7) residential lots, one (1) open space lot, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot to accommodate the existing California Water Service Company Offices, on property located within the City’s designated Rs-4 zoning district, located at 5837 Crest Road.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of November 2001, by the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:

_______________________
Frank Lyon
Chairman


_____________________________
Joel Rojas, aicp
Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement; and, Secretary
to the Planning Commission



P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONALLY APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 53305, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 30, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 228 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2242 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 738, TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF A 4.99-ACRE SITE INTO SEVEN (7) RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE (1) OPEN SPACE LOT, ONE (1) PRIVATE STREET LOT AND ONE (1) LOT TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY OFFICES, ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY’S DESIGNATED RS-4 ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 5837 CREST ROAD

WHEREAS, on September 18, 2000, applications for Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228, Grading Permit No. 2242 and Environmental Assessment No. 738 were submitted to the Planning Department by JCC Homes, Inc. on behalf of the property owner, California Water Service Company, to allow the division of a 4.99-acre site into seven (7) residential lots, one (1) open space lot, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot to accommodate the existing California Water Service Company offices; and,

WHEREAS, Staff completed an initial review of the applications and plans submitted to the Planning Department and determined that additional information was needed in order to continue processing the request. Furthermore, the applicant was informed of some potential Staff concerns pertaining to views and aesthetics, thus recommending that an environmental consultant prepare the necessary environmental documents to determine the project’s impact on the surrounding environment. Subsequently, Staff deemed the subject applications incomplete on October 18, 2000 and February 8, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, on March 20, 2001 the augmented project applications and revised plans were submitted to the City and reviewed by Staff, and subsequently deemed complete for processing pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act on April 17, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review for twenty-one (21) days between September 13, 2001 and October 4, 2001, and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 25, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, at the September 25, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff and the applicant to further investigate design alternatives to address concerns pertaining to density, structure size, setback buffers and view impacts with the applicant and the surrounding neighbors. A unanimous motion to continue action on the proposed tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to October 23, 2001 was passed by the Commission; and,

WHEREAS, on October 9, 2001 Staff met with the applicant and surrounding neighbors to address the concerns identified at the September 25, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. At that time, possible project revisions were discussed by the applicant and presented to Staff and the neighbors, who collectively addressed the concerns pertaining to density, structure size, setback buffers and view impacts; and,

WHEREAS, on October 16, 2001, the applicant submitted revised project plans to the City in order to address the concerns raised by Staff and the neighbors; and,

WHEREAS, at the October 23, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission was presented with the revised project plans and heard additional testimony from the neighbors. A unanimous motion to continue action on the proposed tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to October 23, 2001 was passed by the Commission; and,

WHEREAS, after issuing a new notice pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 27, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,

WHEREAS, at its November 27, 2001 meeting, after hearing public testimony, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__ making certain findings related to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Tentative Tract Map No. 53305 to subdivide the 4.99-acre site into ten (10) lots:

A. The subject applications would permit the subdivision of a 4.99-acre site into ten (10) lots, consisting of seven (7) residential lots, one (1) open space lot, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot for the remaining California Water Service Company office. The proposed residential lots will maintain a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum contiguous lot area of 3,300 square feet, as required by the City’s Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance for lots located within the designated RS-4 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district. As proposed, six (6) of the lots will maintain access off Scotwood Drive via a new private street, and the seventh residential lot will have direct access off Scotwood Drive, an existing public street. The subject property is currently improved with the existing California Water Service Company office, reservoir, maintenance yard, carport and parking lot. A portion of the existing carport will be demolished prior to recordation of the final tract map. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision requires 16,000 cubic yards of associated grading, consisting of 14,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill, of which 12,000 cubic yards will be exported from the site. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is permitted within the RS-4 zoning district, and would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. In making this finding, the Planning Commission considered the project's mitigation measures that address the issues of Land Use and Planning, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology, Noise, Traffic/Circulation, Utilities, and Water Quality.

B. The creation of seven (7) single-family residential lots is consistent with the type of land use and density identified in the City’s General Plan, Residential 46 Dwelling Units per Acre; and, as conditioned, is consistent with the City’s Development Code for projects within the RS-4 zoning district, and will not significantly impact the required land use.

C. The creation of seven (7) single-family residential lots is designed to comply with the minimum 10,000 square foot lot area requirement and the minimum 3,300 square foot contiguous lot area requirement for newly-created lots in the City’s RS-4 zoning district, and the newly created lots comply with the minimum lot width and depth standards required for the RS-4 zoning district.

D. The subdivision and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract; and that the dedications required by local ordinance are shown on the Tentative Tract Map and/or are set forth in the attached conditions of approval.

E. The subject use, as conditioned, mitigates or reduces significant adverse effects to adjacent properties or the permitted uses thereof and will create a project that will be sensitive and harmonious with the surrounding area.

F. The project requires 16,000 cubic yards of associated grading to prepare the site for residential development. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project will not result in significant adverse affects to topography; destruction, covering, or modification of unique geologic or physical features; impacts to archeological or paleontological resources; or expose persons to seismic ground failure, landslides, or other known hazards; affect any plant or animal species or result in the removal of any sensitive plant life or animal life; or create a wasteful or inefficient use of the energy already being consumed on the site. Although on-site grading is proposed, a geotechnical report addressing the scope of the project grading has been conceptually approved by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer in the planning stage, further reports will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Building Official and the City’s geotechnical consultant prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Furthermore, the geotechnical report shall provide the developer with applicable conditions for which the project shall be constructed, along with other conditions that the City’s Building Official and City’s geotechnical consultant find necessary to ensure the project is constructed in a manner that does not jeopardize the public’s health, safety and welfare. As such, the conditions will ensure that the proposed project will not cause any significant geological impacts.

Section 2: The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to change the land use designation for portions of the property from Infrastructure-Facility to Residential 4-6 DU/acre is appropriate because the Infrastructure-Facility designation is reflective of the land use in place on the property at the time of the City’s incorporation in 1973. Also in 1973, the property was down-zoned for single-family residential use with a 1-acre minimum lot size because the County land use plan for the site and the City as a whole generally called for much higher residential densities than existed at the time. Through the adoption of the City’s first zoning ordinance in 1975, the property was re-zoned RS-4, which was and is consistent with the density of development in the surrounding single-family neighborhood (Mesa Palos Verdes). The portions of the site proposed for residential development are surplus areas that are no longer needed for the water company’s operations. This is due in part to the fact that the original water company facilities were envisioned to supply a much higher density of development in the City—particularly within the coastal areas—which never materialized after the incorporation and down-zoning of much of the City. However, there is still an apparent inconsistency with the General plan land use designation of Infrastructure-Facility and the site’s RS-4 zoning designation. Therefore, the approval of the proposed subdivision and residential development of portions of the California Water Service Company site should be contingent upon the City Council’s approval of a general plan amendment that designates the portions of the site proposed for residential development as Residential 2-4 DU/acre.

Section 3: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 228 to establish a residential planned development (RPD) overlay for the subject property:

A. The proposed Residential Planned Development conforms to the intent of the General Plan and any specific plan adopted by the City. The General Plan designates the CWSC site as Infrastructure-Facility, while the City’s zoning map designates the property RS-4. This is the same zoning designation as the surrounding Mesa Palos Verdes community, which is designated Residential, 2-4 DU/acre in the General Plan. The CWSC office, maintenance yard, reservoir and pump station will remain so that the site will continue to fulfill its role consistent with the General Plan. The portions of the property that are proposed to be developed for residential use are portions that are no longer necessary for CWSC’s operations. As such, their transition to uses that are consistent with the surrounding Residential, 2-4 DU/acre land use designation conforms with the intent of the General Plan. It is the primary goal of the Land Use Element of the General Plan "to provide for land uses which will be sensitive to and enhance the natural environment and character of the community, supply appropriate facilities to serve residents and visitors, promote a range of housing types, promote fiscal balance, and protect the general health, safety and welfare of the community." According to the General Plan, undeveloped property that is designated Residential, 2-4 DU/acre "has low and moderate physical and social constraints and the density is compatible with the adjacent existing and future densities." The Planning Commission finds that these characteristics are applicable to the subject property.

B. The proposed Residential Planned Development conforms to the uses and development standards contained in Chapter 17.42 (Residential Planned Development) of the City’s Development Code. As a condition of approval, Lot 7 of the subdivision will be retained as an open area. This lot exceeds thirty percent (30%) of the total site area, thereby complying with RPVDC Section 17.42.040(C). Pursuant to Sections 17.42.040(C)(3) and (4), Lot 7 would be dedicated to CWSC as the "appropriate agency" to oversee its management and maintenance. The proposed homes will meet or exceed the City’s off-street parking requirements, and the lot coverage/open space requirements of the RS-4 zoning district will also be met. The existing CWSC facilities will be retained on the site, which is permitted pursuant to Section 17.42.030(E). Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project conforms with the provisions of Chapter 17.42.

C. The proposed Residential Planned Development conforms to the intent of the provisions and requirements of the City’s Development Code, including but not limited to the residential development standards of Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts). In particular, the plans indicate that adequate consideration has been given to the scale, architectural styles and materials of both the proposed and surrounding residences. The seven (7) homes proposed as a part of this project have been reviewed for compatibility with the character of the surrounding Mesa Palos Verdes neighborhood. All of the homes will comply with the 20-foot front-yard setback requirement, which applies throughout the surrounding neighborhood. The homes will also display a variety of architectural styles and materials that complement the architecture of nearby homes. Although the proposed homes are generally larger than the surrounding homes in Mesa Palos Verdes, their size has been reduced by the applicant in response to neighborhood concerns. The six (6) homes on the cul-de-sac will form their own "neighborhood" that will be internally consistent with itself. The seventh home, which faces on to Scotwood Drive, will be seen in direct context with adjacent residences, so it has been re-designed to minimize its apparent bulk and mass as viewed from the street. With respect to view preservation, the project has been modified to limit all seven (7) homes to sixteen feet (16’) in height, as measured from the finished grade elevations, so that ocean views are preserved and protected. With respect to other development standards, the only deviation requested is the reduction on interior side-yard setback between the homes in the project. This reduction will only affect the homes in the project itself, since the required minimum side-yard setbacks where the proposed homes abut the neighboring residences (Lots 3, 4 and 9) will be met or exceeded. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project conforms to the intent of the provisions and requirements of the City’s Development Code.

D. The site and grading plans indicate adequate consideration for the preservation of existing trees and native plant growth, watercourses and other natural features, and natural topography. Creation of individual "pads" for each home site, in hillside areas, shall be discouraged. Building design shall accommodate the site. The are no natural features, watercourses or topography on the subject property. However, there are a number of mature, non-native trees and other foliage on portions of proposed Lots 1 through 4. The applicant has prepared a landscape plan to retain as much of the existing mature foliage as possible, and to re-vegetate areas where the existing foliage cannot be retained.

E. The plans for the proposed development show that adequate consideration has been given to privacy at the individual, family and neighborhood levels, including visual and acoustical privacy, in terms of the separation or orientation of dwelling units and private outdoor living areas. The developer has plotted the proposed homes on the lots based upon the standard RS-4 setbacks. However, the rear yards of all of the proposed homes exceed the 15-foot minimum setback, and they all abut the rear yards of surrounding homes (Lots 1 through 3), the existing reservoir area (Lots 4 through 6) or the CWSC maintenance yard (Lot 9). All of the proposed homes comply with the 50-percent lot coverage standard of the RS-4 district. In addition, the side-yard setbacks of Lots 3 and 4 abutting the rear yards of homes on Stonecrest Road have been increased to provide additional privacy. As such, the Planning Commission finds that reasonable privacy will be provided in the rear yard areas.

F. The plans indicate that adequate consideration has been given to auto and pedestrian circulation, discouraging through-traffic on local streets, speed control, access, convenience, safety and the recreational aspects of pedestrian and bicycle circulation; and an indication on the plans that the design of any proposed streets that vary from City standards will perform the function required and that the off-site improvements will not create maintenance costs to the City which greatly exceed the costs for standard off-site improvements. The proposed private street would mainly serve the residents of the new subdivision, while trips to and from the CWSC facility would primarily use the existing driveway from Crest Road. Since the proposed street will be private, the maintenance costs will not be borne by the City. The proposed street has been reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department, and will also require final approval by the Fire Department prior to recordation of the final tract map. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that this finding can be made for the proposed project.

G. The plans indicate that common open space areas will be suitable for recreational use and valuable for views, conservation or separation of dwelling units. The open space area would be the existing lawn on top of the underground reservoir. Since the reservoir will remain, it would not be appropriate for this property to be used for active recreational use. However, it is ideal for passive recreational use (such as walking or picnicking) and to function as a buffer for the surrounding homes to the north and northeast of the project site.

H. The plans indicate that adequate consideration has been given to the provision of common recreation areas and facilities, in relation to the size of the private lots and reduced recreation opportunities in private yards. The proposed lot sizes all exceed the minimum 10,000-square-foot standard of the RS-4 district. These proposed lots would be adequate to provide for the development of private recreation areas and other accessory uses on each lot. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project does not warrants the inclusion of common recreational facilities for its residents.

I. The plans indicate adequate consideration for adjacent existing and future developments, and the extension of the circulation, open space, drainage and utility systems from one development to another. The project will continue to provide for infrastructure connections to the surrounding neighborhood. Aside from these, however, the Planning Commission finds no need or opportunity for connection with circulation or open space systems in the surrounding neighborhood.

J. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof. As discussed elsewhere in this Resolution and in the accompanying Resolution recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, all adverse impacts of the project will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels.

K. The required finding that, if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts) of the City’s Development Code, the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter, is not applicable because the subject property is not located within an overlay control district.

L. Conditions that the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed upon the project, as delineated in the attached Exhibit ‘A’.

Section 4: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Grading Permit No. 2242 for the development of seven (7) single-family residences and a private street:

A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Section 17.96.2210 of the Development Code. The proposed project encompasses sixteen thousand cubic yards (16,000 CY) of earth movement, much of which is remedial in nature. Based upon similar construction of new homes on vacant lots elsewhere in the City, this is a relatively small quantity of material for the construction of seven homes and a private street. In most cases, the final pad elevations of the proposed lots will not vary significantly from the existing site topography. The graded areas will be confined to the proposed residential lots and private street, which comprise less than half of the total site.

B. The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties. The elevations of many of the pads have been lowered in response to neighborhood concerns, and all of the proposed homes now comply with the 16-foot height limit for pad or downslope lots. These modifications have reduced or eliminated the impairment of views from surrounding properties.

C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours, and finished contours are reasonably natural. The site is generally flat. With the exception of the transitional 3:1 slopes on Lots 1 through 3, no large new slope areas will be created.

D. The required finding that the grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpting so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography, is not applicable because there are no natural topographic features on the subject property.

E. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Section 17.02.040(A)(6) of the Development Code. As discussed elsewhere in this Resolution, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with the immediate neighborhood character.

F. 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 visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas. Although the proposed project is a new residential tract, it is not located in a hillside area. The approval of a grading permit for this project is conditioned to require implementation of slope protection and erosion control, as well as compliance with the provisions of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. In addition, the applicant will be required to retain and protect as much of the existing mature foliage on the site as possible.

G. 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 involve the construction of a new private street, but the site is not located in a hillside area. Nonetheless, the grading for the private street comprises as fairly small portion of the overall grading proposed.

H. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. There does exist mature foliage on the site, but no wildlife habitat that supports any sensitive (i.e., endangered or threatened) species.

I. The grading conforms with the minimum standards for finished slope, depth of cut and/or fill, retaining wall location and height, and driveway slope established under Section 17.76.040(E)(8) of the Development Code.

Section 5: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.76.040(H) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following November 27, 2001, the date of the Planning Commission’s final action.

Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council conditionally approve Tentative Tract Map No. 53305, General Plan Amendment No. 30, Conditional Use Permit No. 228 and Grading Permit No. 2242 in conjunction with the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment No. 738, to allow the subdivision of a 4.99-acre site into seven (7) residential lots, one (1) open space lot, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot to accommodate the existing California Water Service Company offices, on property located within the City’s designated RS-4 zoning district, located at 5837 Crest Road, subject to the recommended conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit ‘A’.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of November 2001, by the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:


_______________________
Frank Lyon
Chairman

 

_____________________________
Joel Rojas, aicp
Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement; and, Secretary
to the Planning Commission



EXHIBIT ‘A’
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53305, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 30, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 228 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2242
(JCC Homes/California Water Service Company, 5837 Crest Road)

General

  1. Within ninety (90) days of this approval, 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 approval. 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 developer shall supply the City with one mylar and copies of the map after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.
  3. This approval expires twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval of the tentative tract map by the City Council, unless extended per Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 16.16.040 of the Development Code. Any request for extension shall be submitted to the Planning Department in writing prior to the expiration of the map.
  4. The portion of the existing carport structure that crosses the property line between Lots 8 and 9 shall be demolished prior to recording the final tract map. A demolition permit shall be obtained by the City’s Building and Safety division prior to any demolition activity.
  5. All lots shall comply with the lot criteria required by the Development Code for a RS-4 Zoning District, including the 10,000 square foot minimum lot area and the 3,300 square foot minimum contiguous lot area.
  6. The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 5 PM on Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays unless otherwise permitted with the approval of a Special Construction Permit.
  7. Unless specific development standards for the development of the lots are contained in these conditions of approval, the development of the lots shall comply with the requirements of Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code.
  8. The approval of the proposed subdivision and residential development of portions of the California Water Service Company site shall be contingent upon the City Council’s approval of a general plan amendment that designates the portions of the site proposed for residential development as Residential 2-4 DU/acre.

Subdivision Map Act

  1. Prior to submitting the Final Map for recordation pursuant to Section 66442 of the Government Code, the subdivider shall obtain clearances from affected departments and divisions, including a clearance from the City’s Engineer for the following items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, correctness of certificates and signatures, etc.

County Recorder

  1. If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map, the developer shall submit a preliminary guarantee. A final guarantee will be required at the time of filing of the final map with the County Recorder. If said signatures do not appear on the final map, a preliminary title report/guarantee is needed that covers the area showing all fee owners and interest holders. The account for this preliminary title report guarantee shall remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder.

Archaeology

  1. A qualified archaeologist shall make frequent periodic grading inspections to evaluate cultural resources on the site. If archaeological resources are found, all work in the immediate area shall stop and the resources shall be removed or preserved. All "finds" shall be reported to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement immediately.

  1. A qualified paleontologist shall be present during all rough grading operations. If paleontological resources are found, the paleontologist shall stop all work in the affected area and all resources shall be excavated or preserved. All "finds" shall be reported to the Director Planning, Building and Code Enforcement immediately.

Sewers

  1. A bond, cash deposit, or other City approved security, shall be posted prior to recordation of the Final Map or start of work, whichever occurs first, to cover costs for construction of a sanitary sewer system, in an amount to be determined by the Director of Public Works.

  1. Prior to approval of the final map, the subdivider shall submit to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement a written statement from the County Sanitation District approving the design of the tract with regard to the existing trunk line sewer. Said approval shall state all conditions of approval, if any, and state that the County is willing to maintain all connections to said trunk lines.
  2. Approval of this subdivision of land is contingent upon the installation, dedication and use of local main line sewer and separate house laterals to serve each lot of the land division.
  3. Sewer easements are required, subject to review by the City Engineer, to determine the final locations and requirements.
  4. Prior to construction, the subdivider shall obtain approval of the sewer improvement plans from the County Engineer Sewer Design and Maintenance Division.

Water

  1. There shall be filled with the City Engineer a "will serve" statement from the water purveyor indicating that water service can be provided to meet the demands of the proposed development. Said statement shall be dated no more than six (6) months prior to issuance of the building permits.
  2. Prior to recordation of the Final Map or prior to commencement of work, whichever comes first, the subdivider must submit a labor and materials bond in addition to either:

    1. An agreement and a faithful performance bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer and guaranteeing the installation of the water system; or
    2. An agreement and other evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer indicating that the subdivider has entered into a contract with the serving water utility to construct the water system, as required, and has deposited with such water utility security guaranteeing payment for the installation of the water system.

  1. There shall be filed with the City Engineer a statement from the water purveyor indicating that the proposed water mains and any other required facilities will be operated by the water purveyor and that, under normal operating conditions, the system will meet the needs of the developed tract.

  1. At the time the final land division map is submitted for checking, plans and specifications for the water systems facilities shall be submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval, and shall comply with the City Engineer’s standards. Approval for filing of the land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications mentioned above.

  1. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities that shall include fire hydrants of the size and type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land division. The City Engineer shall determine domestic flow requirements. Fire flow requirements shall be determined by the Fire Department and evidence of approval by the Fire Chief is required.
  2. Framing of structures shall not begin until after the Los Angeles County Fire Department has determined that there is adequate fire fighting water and access available to said structures.
  3. Prior to project approval by the City, and subject to the review and approval of the City PBCE Department, the project proponent shall provide evidence that they have received confirmation from the California Water Service Company that current water supplies are adequate to serve the proposed project.
  4. The City shall ensure that construction plans and specifications for all proposed homes shall include the following interior water conservation measures for the following plumbing devices and appliances:
  • Reduce water pressure to 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve.
  • Install water-conserving clothes washers.
  • Install water-conserving dishwashers and/or spray emitters that are retrofitted to reduce flow.
  • Install one-and-one-half gallon, ultra-low flush toilets.

  1. Landscaping and irrigation plans for the public and private open space areas shall be submitted by the project proponent and approved by the Director of PBCE, prior to the issuance of building permits. Said plans shall incorporate, at a minimum, the following water conservation measures:

  • Extensive use of native plant materials.
  • Low water-demand plants.
  • Minimum use of lawn or, when used, installation of warm season grasses.
  • Grouped plants of similar water demand to reduce over-irrigation of low water demand plants.
  • Extensive use of mulch in all landscaped areas to improve the soil’s water-holding capacity.
  • Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems.
  • Use of reclaimed wastewater, stored rainwater or gray water for irrigation.

  1. The project proponents shall contact the Department of Water Resources for information on other water conservation techniques which could be incorporated into the project design. Evidence of compliance with such other recommendations shall be submitted to the Director of PBCE, prior to the issuance of building permits.

Drainage

  1. A bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof shall be posted to cover costs of construction in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.

  1. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the developer shall submit a hydrology study to the City Engineer to determine any adverse impacts to existing flood control facilities generated by this project. Should the City Engineer determine that adverse impacts will result, the developer will be required to post a cash deposit or bond or combination thereof in an amount to be determined by the Director of Public Works, which will be based on the project’s share of the necessary improvements.
  2. Drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply with the following requirements must be approved prior to the recordation of the Final Map or commencement of work, whichever comes first:

      1. Provide drainage facilities to remove the flood hazard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and dedicate and show easements on the final map.
      2. Eliminate the sheet overflow and ponding or elevate the floors of the buildings with no openings in the foundation walls to at least twelve inches above the finished pad grade.
      3. Provide drainage facilities to protect the lots from high velocity scouring action.
      4. Provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties.

  1. In accordance with Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the State Department of Fish and Game, 350 Golden Shore, Long Beach, California 90802, (562) 435-7741, shall be notified prior to commencement of work within any natural drainage courses affected by this project.
  2. All drainage swales and any other on-grade drainage facilities, including gunite, shall be of an earth tone color and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

  1. Site surface drainage measures included in the project Geotechnical Engineering & Engineering Geologic Exploration report (Western Laboratories, July 21, 2000) shall be implemented by the project developer during project construction.

  1. Subject to review and approval of the City Public Works and Building and Safety Department and prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit a stormwater management plan which shows the on-site and off-site stormwater conveyance system that will be constructed by the project proponent for the purpose of safely conveying stormwater off of the project site. These drainage structures shall be designed in accordance with the most current standards and criteria of the Director of Public Works and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to ensure that default drainage capacity is maintained. The plan shall also show whether existing stormwater facilities off the site are adequate to convey storm flows.
  2. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding the required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the project. The developer shall obtain this permit and provide the City with proof of the permit before construction activities begin on the project site.
  3. Appropriate Best Management Practices, including sandbags shall be used to help control runoff from the project site during project construction activities.
  4. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the project proponent shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed project.
  5. Streets

  6. Prior to recordation of the Final Map or the commencement of work, whichever occurs first, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof shall be posted to cover costs for the full improvement of all proposed public streets and related improvements, in an amount to be determined by the Director of Public Works.
  7. The developer shall post an additional cash deposit, letter of credit, or combination thereof in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of full improvements of all facilities within the right-of-way of Scotwood Drive adjacent to the Tract. Said improvements may include, but are not limited to, A/C paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements, bikeways, bus stop improvements, medians and landscaping. The design of such improvements shall be subject to the adopted street standards and the approval of the Director of Public Works.
  8. The proposed street shall be "private" and designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, pursuant to the following specifications:
    1. All proposed streets shall be thirty (30) feet in width, measured from flow-line. Right-of-way shall be a minimum of thirty-three (33) feet.
    2. Cul-de-sacs shall be designed to the specifications of the Director of Public Works and the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
    3. Street and traffic signs shall be placed at all intersections and/or corners, as specified by the Director of Public Works, and shall meet City standards.
    4. All proposed streets shall be designed in substantially the same alignment, as shown on the approved tentative tract map, and to the above conditions.
    5. Any raised and landscaped medians and textured surfaces shall be designed to standards as approved by the Director of Public Works prior to construction. The developer shall provide maintenance of such improvements.
    6. No street lights or vehicular gates are permitted.

  9. The contractor shall be responsible for repairs to any neighboring streets (those streets to be determined by the Director of Public Works) which may be damaged during development of the tract. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall post a bond, cash deposit or City approved security, in an amount sufficient to cover the costs to repair any damage to streets or appurtenant structures as a result of this development.
  10. The applicant shall obtain any necessary approvals from the City of Rolling Hills Estates to allow the use of public streets for project-related construction vehicles.
  11. The City, at its discretion, may permit the developer to make said improvements or use the above payments to make said improvements by the City, as determined by the Director of Public Works.
  12. The developer shall pay traffic impact fees in an amount determined by the Director of Public Works upon acceptance of all public works improvements by the Director of Public Works.
  13. Utilities

  14. All utilities to and on the lots shall be provided underground, including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation. Cable television shall connect to the nearest trunk line at the developer’s expense.

Geology

  1. Subject to review and approval by the Director of the City Planning Building and Code Enforcement Department (City PBCE) and prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent implement are of the recommendations in the Geotechnical Engineering & Engineering Geologic Exploration report (Western Laboratories, July 21, 2000) prepared for the project.
  2. Prior to recordation of the Final Map or commencement of work, whichever occurs first, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof shall be posted to cover costs for any geologic hazard abatement in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.
  3. All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development shall be eliminated or the City Geologist shall designate a restricted use area in which the erection of buildings or other structures shall be prohibited.
  4. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the developer shall submit a Geology and/or Soils Engineer’s report on the expansive properties of soils on all building sites in the proposed subdivision. Such soils are defined by Building Code Section 2904 (b).
  5. An as-built geological report shall be submitted for structures founded on bedrock. An as-built soils and compaction report shall be submitted for structures founded on fill as well as for all engineered fill areas.

Easements

  1. Easements shall not be granted or recorded within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highway access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements until after the final tract map is filed with the County Recorder, unless such easements are subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the Final Tract Map.
  2. A private street easement, prepared to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, shall be recorded against Lots 8 and 10 allowing egress and ingress rights to Lots 1 through 6.
  3. Easements are required, subject to review by the City Engineer, to determine the final locations and requirements.

Survey Monumentation

  1. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof shall be posted to cover costs to establish survey monumentation in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.
  2. Within twenty-four (24) months from the date of filing the Final Map, the developer shall set survey monuments and tie points and furnish the tie notes to the City Engineer.
  3. All lot corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code.
  4. All tract corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.

Street Names and Numbering

  1. Any street names and/or house numbering by the developer must be approved by the City Engineer.

Park, Open Space and Other Dedications

  1. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall pay to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes a Parkland Dedication in lieu fee which is to be calculated pursuant to the City’s Development Code.
  2. A notation shall be placed upon the final tract map, stating the Lot 7 is a common open space area for the tract, pursuant to Section 17.42.040(C) of the City’s Municipal Code. Lot 7 shall be held in fee by California Water Service Company and its successors, which shall be obligated to maintain the property as a common open space area. The foliage along the southerly property line of Lot 7 shall be maintained so as not to exceed eight feet (8’) in height.

  3. A notation shall be placed upon the final tract map, reserving the right to prohibit the erection of residential structures on Lots 7 and 8 to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
  4. Affordable Housing

  5. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the subdivider shall agree to participate in the City’s affordable housing program, as codified in Chapter 17.11 of the City’s Municipal Code. Said participation may include construction of affordable units and/or payment of an affordable housing in-lieu fee.

Grading

  1. Prior to recordation of the Final Map or the commencement of work, whichever occurs first, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof, shall be posted to cover the costs of grading in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.
  2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit by Building and Safety, the applicant shall submit to the City a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating that the applicant has obtained a general liability insurance policy in an amount not less than 5 million dollars per occurrence and in the aggregate to cover awards for any death, injury, loss or damage, arising out of the grading or construction of this project by the applicant. Said insurance policy must be issued by an insurer admitted to do business in the State of California with a minimum rating of A-VII by Best’s Insurance Guide. Said insurance shall not be canceled or reduced during the grading or construction work and shall be maintained in effect for a minimum period of one (1) year following the final inspection and approval of said work by the City, and without providing at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City.
  3. Said approval shall allow a total of 16,000 cubic yards of earth movement, consisting of 14,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill, of which 12,000 cubic yards will be exported from the site. The maximum height of cut is 8 feet and the maximum height of fill is 3 feet. Any revisions that result in a substantial increase to the aforementioned grading quantities shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a revision to the grading application.
  4. A construction plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to issuance of grading permits. Said plan shall include but not be limited to: limits of grading, estimated length of time for rough grading and improvements, location of construction trailer, location and type of temporary utilities. The use of rock crushers shall be prohibited.
  5. Prior to filing the Final Map, a grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geologist. This grading plan shall include a detailed engineering, geology and/or soils engineering report and shall specifically be approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. It shall also be consistent with the tentative map and conditions, as approved by the City.
  6. A note shall be placed on the approved grading plan that requires the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement to approve rough grading prior to final clearance. The Director (or a designated staff member) shall inspect the graded site for accuracy of pad elevations, created slope gradients, and pad size by requiring the applicant to provide survey certifications of the pad elevations, slope gradients, and pad sizes.
  7. Grading shall conform to Chapter 29, "Excavations, Foundations, and Retaining Walls", and Chapter 70, "Excavation and Grading of the Uniform Building Code".
  8. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall demonstrate to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code Requirements which require watering for the control of dust.
  9. During construction, all grading activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 30 mph). To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff.
  10. The project proponent shall provide the Director of PBCE with weekly certifications that all construction equipment is fitted with emission control devices and kept in proper tune.
  11. Graded slope tops shall be rounded, slope gradients shall be varied, and no significant abrupt changes between natural and graded slopes will be permitted. All created slopes shall not be greater than 3:1. Slopes may be split between adjacent lots.
  12. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the project proponent shall prepare a haul route plan for approval by the City’s Public Works Department. The project proponent shall also be required to post a bond with the City in an amount determined by the Public Works Department that will provide for the repair of City streets damaged by the hauling of soil to the project site.
  13. Project construction activities shall comply with applicable City noise restrictions. Construction activities shall be limited to hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. No project construction will be allowed on Sundays or on holidays.

Public Services

  1. The project proponent will coordinate with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department to determine any appropriate mitigation to compensate for the increase in the demand for fire protection services due to the proposed project and any special site design considerations that would minimize fire hazards. The cul-de-sac to be constructed as part of this project shall be constructed to Fire Department Standards to allow room for fire trucks to turn around in the cul-de-sac.
  2. The project proponent will coordinate with the County of Los Angeles, Office of the Sheriff, to determine any appropriate mitigation to compensate for the increase in the demand for police protection services due to the proposed project. Appropriate police service fees shall be paid before a Use and Occupancy Permit is issued for the project.

Common Area Improvements and CC&R’s

  1. To the maximum extent feasible, existing foliage along the south and east boundaries of the tract and along the south boundary of Lot 7 shall be retained to preserve the privacy of adjacent residences. Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a tract landscape plan for the Director’s review that delineates the existing foliage to be removed and preserved, as well as new foliage to be planted. The Director may require the planting of additional replacement foliage to ensure the privacy of adjacent residences

  1. Prior to approval of the Final Map, copies of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) shall be submitted for the review of the Director and the City Attorney. Said CC&R’s shall reflect the standards provided in Chapter 17.42 (Residential Planned Development) of the Municipal Code, as well as all applicable development standards contained in this Resolution. All necessary legal agreements, including homeowners’ association, deed restrictions, covenant, dedication of development rights, public easements and proposed methods of maintenance and perpetuation of drainage facilities and any other hydrological improvements prior to the approval of the Final Map.

Development Standards for Individual Lots

  1. The Final Map shall be in conformance with the lot sizes and configurations shown on the Tentative Map for the RS-4 zoning district. All lots shall maintain a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, a minimum contiguous lot area of 3,300 square feet, which excludes setback areas and extreme slopes areas, and a minimum width of 75 feet and minimum depth of 100 feet, as defined by the Development Code.
  2. No siting or grading for homes shall occur on existing extreme slopes (greater than 35%), unless otherwise permitted by criteria set forth in the Development Code. Driveway slopes to individual homes shall conform to the standards set forth in the Development Code.

  1. The private driveways shall meet Fire Department standards, including any painting or stenciling of curbs denoting its existence as a Fire Lane and turn-arounds.
  2. Final building and site plans, including but not limited to grading, setbacks, elevations, lot coverage calculations, landscaping, and lighting shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for review and approval to determine conformance with the Development Code. Said plans shall be in substantial compliance with the plans stamped approved with the effective date of this Resolution.
  3. The maximum building pad elevations and building heights for all main structures are limited as follows and shall be certified prior to issuance of final building permits:
  4. LOT NO.

    PAD ELEVATION

    MAXIMUM HEIGHT

    MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATION

    1

    1184.0’/1174.0’

    16’

    1200.0’

    2

    1184.5’/1174.5’

    16’

    1200.5’

    3

    1185.0’/1175.0’

    16’

    1201.0’

    4

    1189.0’

    16’

    1205.0’

    5

    1186.5’

    16’

    1202.5’

    6

    1186.5’

    16’

    1202.5’

    9

    1201.5’/1193.5’

    16’

    1217.5’

  5. All of the proposed residences shall be constructed in compliance with the 16-foot height limits for downslope and pad lots, as defined in the City’s Development Code.
  6. Chimneys, vents and other similar features may only exceed the 16-foot height limit by the minimum height necessary to comply with Building Code requirements.
  7. The project proponent shall submit a lighting plan for approval of the Director of PBCE prior to issuance of the project and residential building permits.
  8. The minimum roof pitch shall be of 3:12. No flat roofs shall be permitted, except as architectural features as permitted by the Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement.
  9. Accessory structures shall not exceed a height of twelve (12) feet, as measured from the lowest pre-construction grade adjacent to the foundation wall to the top of the highest roof ridgeline.
  10. The following table lists the minimum setbacks for the residential lots:
  11. LOT NO.

    FRONT

    REAR

    E. SIDE

    W. SIDE

    ST. SIDE

    1

    20’

    56’

    10’

    32’

    -

    2

    20’

    52’

    10’

    7’

    -

    3

    20’

    45’

    25’

    7’

    -

    4

    20’

    15’

    28’

    5’

    -

    5

    20’

    26’

    6’

    10’

    -

    6

    20’

    22’

    7’

    15’

    -

    9

    20’

    42’

    -

    10’

    10’

  12. All foliage on private lots shall be maintained so not to create significant view impairment from surrounding properties in accordance to Section 17.02.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
  13. Prior to issuance of building permits, the subdivider shall submit a tract fencing plan for the review and approval for the Director.



2. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 170/172 and GRADING PERMIT NO. 2260/2281: Marmol & Radziner (applicant) and Eric Johnson (owner), 2 Yacht Harbor Drive. (KF)

Requested Action: Allow construction of a new, 12-foot-tall single-family residence and subterranean garage, guest house, studio and swimming pool, totaling 22,715 square feet of habitable and non-habitable space, on an 18.88-acre bluff-top site in the Portuguese Bend Club community, and realign a portion of the private street right-of-way of Yacht Harbor Drive across the site in conjunction with the construction of the new residence.

Recommendation: Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, conditionally approving Coastal Permit No. 170/172 and Grading Permit No. 2260/2281.

TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2001

SUBJECT: COASTAL PERMIT NO. 170/172 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2260/2281 (JOHNSON, 2 YACHT HARBOR DRIVE)

Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, conditionally approving Coastal Permit No. 170/172 and Grading Permit No. 2260/2281.

BACKGROUND

On October 9, 2001, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on these applications and heard testimony from the applicant and several interested parties. The direction from the Planning Commission was to require the applicant to silhouette the ridgeline(s) of the proposed house, to consider the applications for the house and the road realignment jointly, and for Staff to respond to issues raised by the public. On October 23, 2001, Staff addressed the additional issues but the silhouette had not been erected. The applicant requested the continuance of this matter to tonight’s meeting in order to complete project modifications and construction of the silhouette. At the October 23, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission also provided additional direction regarding the silhouette and asked for further clarification and analysis of the building height, structure size and lot coverage. Revised project plans were submitted to the City on November 13, 2001 and the silhouettes were completed on or about November 16, 2001.

DISCUSSION

Revised Project Description

The applicant has submitted revised project plans in response to comments from the Planning Commission and a meeting with neighborhood residents in the Seaview community on October 14, 2001. Copies of the revised plans have also been provided directly to several Seaview residents who have expressed concern about the project. The changes to the project are summarized in a letter from the applicant’s architects, dated November 13, 2001, and in the table below.

Plan Feature

Revised Project

Original Project

Main House

First Floor

4,300 SF

4,490 SF

Second Floor

1,930 SF

4,065 SF

Basement

3,250 SF

6,045 SF

Highest Wall/Ridgeline

228.0’

230.0’

Top of Chimney

230.0’

230.0’

Guest House

Floor Area

1,065 SF

1,215 SF

Highest Wall/Ridgeline

222.58’

220.0’

Study

Floor Area

1,195 SF

1,400 SF

Highest Wall/Ridgeline

228.42’

230.0’

Garage

Floor Area

3,685 SF

5,500 SF

Highest Wall/Ridgeline

225.0’

N/A

Building Area

Habitable Area

8,490 SF

11,170 SF

Non-Habitable Area

6,935 SF

11,545 SF

Total Area

15,425 SF

22,715 SF

Remedial Grading

Cut

10,350 CY

10,350 CY

Fill

10,350 CY

10,350 CY

Total

20,700 CY

20,700 CY

Net

0 CY

0 CY

Roadway Grading

Cut

4,800 CY

4,800 CY

Fill

4,800 CY

4,800 CY

Total

9,600 CY

9,600 CY

Net

0 CY

0 CY

House Grading

Cut

11,724 CY

11,500 CY

Fill

3,836 CY

8,765 CY

Total

15,560 CY

20,265 CY

Net

<7,888 CY>

<2,735 CY>


The revised project has been slightly re-oriented on the lot, as depicted on Sheet A5.2 of the plans. The large subterranean garage has been eliminated and replaced with a lowered central motorcourt area and partially-subterranean detached garage. The detached garage will be screened from view from Palos Verdes Drive South by an earthen berm and the "roof" will be planted with turf and/or low-growing, shallow-rooted shrubs. As now proposed, a portion of the detached garage would encroach into the 20-foot front-yard setback area. Although this is permitted for structures that are completely subterranean, the garage is only partially subterranean and would need to comply with the required setback. Therefore, Staff recommends conditioning the approval of the project upon modifications to the garage so that it respects the 20-foot setback. Finally, the functions of the former study and guest house have been swapped, but the structures themselves remain at about the same size and location. The total quantity of grading has decreased by 4,705 cubic yards, but the quantity of export has increased by 5,153 cubic yards.

Silhouette and View Analysis

The applicant has provided a diagram to assist in the interpretation of the silhouettes. The silhouettes depict the major roof planes and walls of the main house, study and guest house, based upon the revised project plans submitted to the City on November 13, 2001. Staff has inspected the silhouettes and believes that they reasonably depict the location, height and bulk of the proposed project.

Staff has reassessed its previous analysis of the view impacts of the project, based upon the completed silhouette. With respect to public views from Palos Verdes Drive South, the revised residence would encroach a maximum of about three feet (3’0") into the 2-degree down-arc zone discussed in the City’s Coastal Specific Plan, but the revised structure is also six feet (6’0") below the 16-foot height limit. As noted in the October 9, 2001 Staff report, the City has generally permitted structures that are not within a specific view corridor (as identified in the Costal Specific Plan) and that comply with the 16-foot height limit to encroach into the 2-degree down-arc zone. Staff still believes that public views for motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians will not be significantly impaired by the revised project. With respect to private views from residences in the Seaview community, in the October 9, 2001 Staff report, Staff acknowledged that some private views from homes across Palos Verdes Drive South might be adversely affected by the proposed residence. At that time, Staff also noted that the proposed residence was only twelve feet (12’0") tall, as measured pursuant to the Development Code. The project has since been revised to a height of ten feet (10’0"), which is six feet (6’0") lower than the maximum 16-foot height limit permitted "by right." Although the 10-foot-tall structure will block some portions of private ocean views, it should not encroach upon views of Santa Catalina Island, which is the major focal point of views in this area. Therefore, Staff believes that the revised 10-foot-tall project and related construction will not adversely affect views from neighboring properties any more significantly than would a 16-foot-tall structure that could be permitted "by right."

Building Height Measurement

At the October 23, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission asked for additional information and graphics to depict the height of the house and to justify why a height variation is not required. Sheets A4.1 and A5.1 of the revised plans depict the various ways that building height could be measured, both with and without the road realignment. These alternatives are summarized in the table below.

Alternatives

Benchmark Elevation

Maximum

16-Foot Height

Proposed Height

With Road Realignment

Measured from average existing grade elevation at 20-foot front setback line (downslope lot) *

216.0’

232.0’

228.0’

<4.0’>

Measured from average finished grade elevation at 20-foot front setback line (downslope lot) **

218.0’

234.0’

228.0’

<6.0’>

Without Road Realignment

Measured from highest existing grade elevation at 15-foot rear setback line (upslope lot) ***

220.0’

236.0’

228.0’

<8.0’>

Measured from highest existing grade elevation covered at current location of proposed structures (upslope lot) ****

217.0’

233.0’

228.0’

<5.0’>


* This is the way that building height is measured for a downslope lot according to the Development Code.
** This measurement is provided for comparison purposes only.
*** The 15-foot rear-yard setback line was chosen as a "worst case" scenario for development of an upslope lot.
**** This measurement is provided for comparison purposes only. In order to accommodate the proposed house at the current proposed location, the road would actually need to be realigned toward the bluff.

With or without the road realignment, measured from either existing or finished grade, the revised project does not exceed the 16-foot height limit for either and upslope of a downslope lot. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040(B)(1) of the Development Code, a height variation is only required for residences that exceed the 16-foot height limit. Therefore, it is Staff’s position that a height variation is not required for this project.

Development Intensity and Neighborhood Compatibility

At the October 23, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission asked Staff to expand the comparison of the development intensity and neighborhood compatibility of the project to include only the truly useable flat upper portion of the 18.88-acre project site. As noted in the October 9, 2001 Staff report, 3.88 acres of the upper portion of the lot is potentially buildable, given that it is located outside of the landslide moratorium area and inland from the coastal structure setback line. The actual development area for the house, however, is limited to approximately two acres (exclusive of any required setbacks) located between the realigned roadway of Yacht Harbor Drive and the coastal structure setback line. In order to draw a more meaningful comparison to the surrounding neighborhoods, the 2-acre building site area has also been included in the neighborhood compatibility analysis in the following table.

Address

Lot Size

Lot Type

Stories

Structure Size

Structure/Lot Ratio

2 Yacht Harbor

822,430

(gross)

Downslope

2

8,490

(living)

0.01

15,425

(total)

0.02

169,085

(buildable)

8,490

(living)

0.05

15,425

(total)

0.09

87,120

(building site)

8,490

(living)

0.10

15,425

(total)

0.18

98 Yacht Harbor

7,871

Downslope

1

1,004

0.13

130 Spindrift

7,050

Downslope

1

1,314

0.19

4187 Maritime

9,060

Pad

1

2,240

0.25

4194 Maritime

9,147

Pad

1

1,936

0.21

4156 PVDS

5,052

Pad

1

1,384

0.27

4225 PVDS

10,431

Pad

1

1,671

0.16

4235 PVDS

10,083

Pad

1

1,797

0.18

4245 PVDS

9,970

Pad

1

1,837

0.18

4255 PVDS

10,640

Pad

1

1,652

0.16

4265 PVDS

11,155

Pad

1

1,865

0.17

Average

9,046

   

1,670

0.18


The overall size of the revised residence is clearly much larger than the ten nearest homes in the Portuguese Bend Club and Seaview communities, as depicted in the table above. However, considering the significantly larger lot size—even exclusive of the non-buildable areas of the site—the scale of the proposed house in proportion to its lot is about the same as in the surrounding neighborhoods. Much of the revised project is partially subterranean, and the portions above ground are broken into smaller units. The guest house and studio units are about the same size as some of the typical homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. The larger main house is set back into the slope of the lot so that the two-story facade is presented to the bluff and not to the homes behind and across Palos Verdes Drive South. In addition, the revised house is still set well apart from the nearest homes so that the mass of the structure is not seen in direct context with these other homes. Therefore, Staff believes that the revised project is compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

At the October 23, 2001 meeting, Staff presented a comparison of the proposed project with the former Transamerica project. The table below has been revised to reflect the revised project proposal.

 

Revised Altamira project

(Eric Johnson)

VTTM 49067, et al.

(Transamerica)

Total Site Area

18.88 acres

18.33 acres

Grading Quantities

 

Cut

26,874 CY

39,000 CY

Fill

18,986 CY

18,000 CY

Total

45,860 CY

57,000 CY

Net

<7,888 CY>

<21,000 CY>

No. of DU’s

1

10

Total Area of DU’s

15,425 SF

58,000 SF

Maximum Ridgelines

228’

227’ to 231’

Min. Distance from PVDS

60’

50’

No. of New Lots

0

13

Road Realignment Req’d?

Yes

No


CONCLUSION

Staff has reviewed the revised project for consistency with the required findings for approval of a coastal permit and grading permit. Staff believes that all of the required findings can still be made for the proposed project, for the reasons discussed in this and the previous Staff reports. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, conditionally approving Coastal Permit No. 170/172 and Grading Permit No. 2260/2281.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration:

  1. Approve the revised project with modifications, and direct Staff to prepare and return with appropriate P.C. Resolutions on a future date certain.
  2. Deny the revised project, and direct Staff to prepare and return with appropriate P.C. Resolutions on a future date certain.
  3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project and/or conditions of approval, and continue the public hearing to a date certain.

The decision deadline for this application has been extended by the mutual consent of the applicant and the City. The final decision deadline is now January 24, 2002.

Attachments:
P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__
Summary of project revisions (dated November 13, 2001)
Additional public correspondence
Minutes and Staff reports from previous Planning Commission meetings
Silhouette diagram and survey points
Revised project plans



P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR COASTAL PERMIT NO. 170/172 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2260/2281 FOR A NEW, 10-FOOT-TALL, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, DETACHED GARAGE, STUDIO, DETACHED GUEST HOUSE AND SWIMMING POOL, TOTALING 15,425 SQUARE FEET OF HABITABLE AND NON-HABITABLE ENCLOSED AREA, AND THE REALIGNMENT OF A PORTION OF YACHT HARBOR DRIVE ON AN 18.88-ACRE SITE IN THE PORTUGUESE BEND CLUB COMMUNITY, LOCATED AT 2 YACHT HARBOR DRIVE

WHEREAS, on January 19, 2001, the applicant, Eric Johnson, submitted applications for Coastal Permit No. 170 and Grading Permit No. 2260 to allow the construction of a new, single-family residential compound on an 18.88-acre bluff-top lot in the Portuguese Bend Club community; and,

WHEREAS, on May 3, 2001, the applicant also submitted applications for Coastal Permit No. 172 and Grading Permit No. 2281 to allow the realignment of a portion of Yacht Harbor Drive across the subject property; and,

WHEREAS, on August 27, 2001, the applications for Coastal Permit No. 170 and Grading Permit No. 2260 and Coastal Permit No. 172 and Grading Permit No. 2281 were deemed complete by Staff; and shall henceforth be referred to collectively as Coastal Permit No. 170/172 and Grading Permit No. 2260/2281; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Coastal Permit No. 170/172 and Grading Permit No. 2260/2281 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 3, Section 15303(a)); and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on October 9, 2001, October 23, 2001 and November 27, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the applications for Coastal Permit No. 170/172 and Grading Permit No. 2260/2281 for the proposed single-family residence and accessory structures:

A. The proposed development is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan because the development of a single-family residence and accessory structures is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan land use designation for the portion of the subject property proposed for development, which is Residential 4-6 DU/acre. The 3.88-acre "buildable" area of the site is located landward of the coastal setback line and outside of the landslide moratorium area. While the discussion of socio-cultural resources in Subregion 6 of the Coastal Specific Plan notes the possibility of archaeological resources extant on the site, previous surveys have revealed no sensitive resources. The subject property is not located with a specific visual corridor identified in the Coastal Specific Plan. The proposed residence would encroach into the 2-degree down-arc zone discussed in the Coastal Specific Plan, but in this case the proposed structure complies with the 16-foot height limit. Views for motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians on Palos Verdes Drive South will not be significantly impaired by the proposed project. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Coastal Specific Plan.

B. The proposed development, when located between the sea and the first public road, is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Section 30211 of the Coastal Act states that "[development] shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization." The Portuguese Bend Club is a private community that provides coastal access to its residents, members and their guests, but since no general public access currently exists, the proposed project will have no impact upon the public’s existing right of access. Although the proposed project meets the definition of "new development" as specified in 30212(b) of the Coastal Act, the Planning Commission finds that the project should not be required to provide public access from Palos Verdes Drive South to the shoreline because there exists adequate public access nearby at the Ocean Trails project to the east and the City’s Abalone Cove Beach Park to the west. The Portuguese Bend Club also provides recreational amenities such as a sandy beach, picnic areas and game courts for its residents, members and guests. The proposed project will have no impact upon these existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with the applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.

C. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Section 17.96.2210 of the Development Code. The proposed project encompasses 20,700 cubic yards of remedial grading and 25,160 cubic yards of non-remedial grading. Of the non-remedial grading, most is within the building footprint. Although these are significant quantities of earth movement, the size of the proposed house is quite large while the quantity of material to be exported from the site is relatively small (7,888 cubic yards). All of the proposed grading will occur within the 3.88-acre "buildable" area of the site that is located landward of the coastal setback line and outside of the landslide moratorium area.

D. The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties. The proposed residence is consistent with the 16-foot height limit for downslope lots. The highest portions of the roof of the structure will not exceed an elevation of 228.0’—six feet (6’) below the maximum allowable elevation—and many portions of the house will be much lower. The proposed 228.0’ maximum ridgeline is approximately one to three feet above the curb of eastbound Palos Verdes Drive South, and is located two to three hundred feet away, while the pad elevations of all of the homes across Palos Verdes Drive South in the Seaview community are higher than the 228.0’ elevation. The proposed grading of the site allows the house to be set back into the slope rather than projecting above it, and the varied roof planes of the house provide for views over the structure.

E. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours, and finished contours are reasonably natural because the site is generally flat, with an average slope of less than ten percent (10%), and will retain this generally flat profile upon completion of the proposed grading.

F. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpting so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. The raised plateau on the west end of the site along Palos Verdes Drive South is the most prominent topographic feature of the site, but most of this plateau is located within the landslide moratorium area and will not be altered.

G. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Section 17.02.040(A)(6) of the Development Code. The components of neighborhood character include front-yard setbacks, architectural styles and materials, and the scale of surrounding residences. The proposed residence significantly exceeds the minimum 20-foot front setback from the realigned Yacht Harbor Drive. By comparison, most homes in the Portuguese Bend Club do not meet the 20-foot front-yard setback due to their very small lot sizes, while most homes in Seaview comply with the required 20-foot setback. With respect to architectural style and materials, the proposed project incorporates a very contemporary design, with extensive use of glass, concrete, Palos Verdes stone veneer and metal roofing. Many of the recently-remodeled homes in the Portuguese Bend Club community have incorporated contemporary design features that depart from the beach cottage architecture that predominated when these homes were first built. In addition, the proposed residence is set significantly apart from these surrounding homes by virtue of the large site and is not seen "in context" with the other Portuguese Bend Club homes. With respect to the Seaview community, which has largely retained the characteristic features of late-50’s ranch-style tract homes, the proposed house is located at least 250 feet away from the nearest homes on Palos Verdes Drive South, which in this area is a 130-foot-wide divided roadway and frontage street with two landscaped medians. As such, the architecture of the proposed house is not seen in direct context with that of the Seaview homes. Finally, the overall size of the proposed residence is clearly much larger than the ten nearest homes in the Portuguese Bend Club and Seaview communities. However, considering the significantly larger lot size—even exclusive of the non-buildable areas of the site—the scale of the proposed house in proportion to its lot is about the same as in the surrounding neighborhoods. A significant portion of the proposed house is subterranean, and the portions above ground are broken into smaller units that are more comparable in size to surrounding residences, particularly the guest house and studio. The larger main house is set back into the slope of the lot so that the two-story facade is presented to the bluff and not to the homes behind and across Palos Verdes Drive South. In addition, the proposed house is set well apart from the nearest homes so that the mass of the structure is not seen in direct context with these other homes.

H. The required finding that 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 visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, is not applicable to the proposed project.

I. The required finding that the grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside is not applicable to the proposed project.

J. The required finding that the grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation is not applicable to the proposed project.

K. The grading conforms with the minimum standards for finished slope, depth of cut and/or fill, retaining wall location and height, and driveway slope established under Section 17.76.040(E)(9) of the Development Code.

Section 2: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the applications for Coastal Permit No. 170/172 and Grading Permit No. 2260/2281 for the proposed realignment of a portion of Yacht Harbor Drive:

A. The proposed development is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan because the development of a private street right-of-way is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan land use designation for the portion of the subject property proposed for development, which is Residential 4-6 DU/acre. The realignment of Yacht Harbor Drive will also include the realignment of related infrastructure easements and improvements to existing drainage facilities that traverse the site. This is consistent with Coastal Specific Plan Policy No. 4 for Subregion 6, which calls upon the City to "[ensure] that flood control improvements within Subregion 6 are carried out in a manner that is consistent with applicable General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan policies regarding preservation of natural habitat, visual character and flood control." While the discussion of socio-cultural resources in Subregion 6 of the Coastal Specific Plan notes the possibility of archaeological resources extant on the site, previous surveys have revealed no sensitive resources. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Coastal Specific Plan.

B. The proposed development, when located between the sea and the first public road, is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Section 30211 of the Coastal Act states that "[development] shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization." The Portuguese Bend Club is a private community that provides coastal access to its residents, members and their guests, but since no general public access currently exists, the proposed project will have no impact upon the public’s existing right of access. Although the proposed project meets the definition of "new development" as specified in 30212(b) of the Coastal Act, the Planning Commission finds that the project should not be required to provide public access from Palos Verdes Drive South to the shoreline because there exists adequate public access nearby at the Ocean Trails project to the east and the City’s Abalone Cove Beach Park to the west. The Portuguese Bend Club also provides recreational amenities such as a sandy beach, picnic areas and game courts for its residents, members and guests. The proposed project will have no impact upon these existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with the applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.

C. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Section 17.96.2210 of the Development Code. The proposed road realignment encompasses 9,600 cubic yards of grading. All of the proposed grading will occur within the 3.88-acre "buildable" area of the site that is located landward of the coastal setback line and outside of the landslide moratorium area.

D. The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties. The realignment of Yacht Harbor Drive establishes an elevation of 218.0’ above mean sea level (MSL) as the benchmark for the height of the proposed downslope residence. However, it is important to note that if Yacht Harbor Drive were not realigned, the property would be an upslope lot from the existing street right-of-way. The 16-foot height limit would still be measured from the high (i.e., inland) side of the lot and structure, so the difference in the maximum allowable ridgeline elevation would be minimal, and it could be even higher than currently proposed with the road realignment.

E. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours, and finished contours are reasonably natural because the site is generally flat, with an average slope of less than ten percent (10%), and will retain this generally flat profile upon completion of the proposed grading.

F. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpting so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. The raised plateau on the west end of the site along Palos Verdes Drive South is the most prominent topographic feature of the site, but most of this plateau is located within the landslide moratorium area and will not be altered.

G. The required finding that, for new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Section 17.02.040(A)(6) of the Development Code, is not applicable to the realignment of Yacht Harbor Drive.

H. The required finding that 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 visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, is not applicable to the proposed project.

I. 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 involves the realignment of Yacht Harbor Drive, but the site is not located in a hillside area. Nonetheless, the grading for the private street comprises a fairly small portion of the overall grading proposed. The realigned street will be approximately ten feet (10’) lower than Palos Verdes Drive West for the portions where the two streets run parallel to one another.

J. The required finding that the grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation is not applicable to the proposed project.

K. The grading conforms with the minimum standards for finished slope, depth of cut and/or fill, retaining wall location and height, and driveway slope established under Section 17.76.040(E)(9) of the Development Code.

Section 3: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.72.100 and 17.76.040(H) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following November 27, 2001, the date of the Planning Commission’s final action.

Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Coastal Permit No. 170/172 and Grading Permit No. 2260/2281 for a new, 10-foot-tall, single-family residence, detached garage, studio, detached guest house and swimming pool, totaling 15,425 square feet of habitable and non-habitable enclosed area, and the realignment of a portion of Yacht Harbor Drive on an 18.88-acre site in the Portuguese Bend Club community, located at 2 Yacht Harbor Drive, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the area.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 27th day of November 2001, by the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:


_______________________
Frank Lyon
Chairman

_____________________________
Joel Rojas, aicp
Director of Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement; and Secretary
to the Planning Commission



EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR COASTAL PERMIT NO. 170/172 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2260/2281
(Johnson, 2 Yacht Harbor Drive)

General Conditions:

  1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
  2. This approval is for the construction of a new 10-foot-tall, single-family residence, detached garage, studio, detached guest house and swimming pool, totaling 15,425 square feet of habitable and non-habitable enclosed area, on an 18.88-acre site in the Portuguese Bend Club community, located at 2 Yacht Harbor Drive.  The approval also includes for the realignment of a portion of the existing private right-of-way of Yacht Harbor Drive across an 18.88-acre site in the Portuguese Bend Club community, located at 2 Yacht Harbor Drive. The maximum ridgeline elevation of the house shall be 228.0’ above mean sea level. The total grading quantities permitted in conjunction with the proposed residence and accessory structures is 20,700 cubic yards of remedial grading (over-excavation and re-compaction) and 25,160 cubic yards of non-remedial grading. The total grading quantity permitted in conjunction with the road realignment is 9,600 cubic yards. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision to Coastal Permit No. 170/172 and/or Grading Permit No. 2260/2281 by the Planning Commission and shall require new and separate environmental review.
  3. All project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, in the RS-5 district development standards of the City's Municipal Code.
  4. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project by the Planning Commission after conducting a public hearing on the matter.
  5. If the project has not been established (i.e., building permits obtained) within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, or if construction has not commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the issuance of building permits, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Director. Otherwise, a coastal permit and grading permit revision must be approved prior to further development.
  6. 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.
  7. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped approved by the City with the effective date of this Resolution.
  8. During rough grading, the applicant shall have an archeologist on site to monitor the grading activity. Any archeological resources unearthed shall be catalogued, removed and/or protected in place as appropriate. The applicant shall provide a report from the archeologist, which summarizes any findings at the completion of rough grading.
  9. The City’s Geotechnical Engineer and Building Official shall review and approve the geotechnical report prepared for the project prior to issuance of project grading or building permits.
  10. The project applicant will implement all of the recommendations in the project geotechnical report.
  11. Subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, the project developer shall submit a drainage plan prior to the issuance of grading permits which shows the on-site and off-site stormwater conveyance systems that will be constructed by the project proponent for the purpose of safely conveying stormwater off the project site. These drainage structures shall be designed in accordance with the most current standards and criteria of the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) to ensure that adequate drainage capacity is maintained.
  12. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the project proponent shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the project proponent will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, if such a permit is required by the RWQCB.
  13. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements, which require watering for the control of dust.
  14. During construction, all grading activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 30 MPH). To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff.
  15. Construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition. All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated.
  16. The project developer shall prepare a haul route plan for trucks hauling spoils from the project site to where this material will be disposed. The plan shall be approved by the Director of Public Works before the City issues the project a grading permit.
  17. Haul routes used to transport soil exported from the project site shall be approved by the City’s Director of Public Works to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to potential adverse noise levels from hauling operations.
  18. The construction site 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.
  19. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.
  20. House and Accessory Structures:

  21. Prior to building permit final, the applicant shall remove existing foliage along the northerly property line abutting Palos Verdes Drive South and replace the existing chain-link fence in this location with a wrought-iron, tubular steel or similar fence, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. The maximum fence height shall be six feet (6’0") above existing grade. If solid pilasters are proposed, the footprint of the pilasters shall not exceed two feet (2’0") square. The fence and any pilasters shall be designed to maintain at least 80-percent openness for the passage of light and air. Hedges or solid walls will not be permitted.
  22. Prior to building permit final, the applicant shall submit a site landscape plan for the review and approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. The landscape plan shall incorporate drought-tolerant plant species and low water use irrigation systems. No irrigation lines are permitted seaward of the coastal setback line. All trees and shrubs shall be of varieties that can be maintained so as not to exceed a height of 16 feet or the highest point of the proposed residence, whichever is lower. The approved site landscaping shall be installed within ninety (90) days of building permit final.
  23. Notwithstanding the plans and applications:

    1. Only minor architectural features and structures, minor equipment and grading are permitted within the 25-foot-wide coastal structure setback zone; and,
    2. Only grading involving less than 20 cubic yards of material and less than 3 feet for cut and/or fill is permitted in the coastal setback zone (i.e., seaward of the coastal setback line).
    3. The detached, partially-subterranean garage shall be modified so as to comply with the 20-foot front-yard setback from Yacht Harbor Drive.

  1. The maximum height of the main house and attached studio shall not exceed an elevation of 228.0’ above mean sea level, except the chimney which may extend to a height of 230.0’. Ridge height certification required.
  2. The maximum height of the detached studio shall not exceed an elevation of 222.58’ above mean sea level. Ridge height certification required.
  3. The maximum height of the detached guest house shall not exceed an elevation of 228.42’ above mean sea level. Ridge height certification required.
  4. The maximum height of the detached garage shall not exceed an elevation of 225.0’ above mean sea level. Ridge height certification required.
  5. The project shall comply with the setbacks depicted on the approved plans. In no case shall the setbacks be less than:

    1. 20 feet from the private street right-of-way of Yacht Harbor Drive for above-ground structures;
    2. 25 feet inland from the coastal setback line.

Building setback certification required.

  1. The approved project shall maintain a maximum of 52% lot coverage (3% proposed).
  2. The maximum height of any walls, fences or berms located between the private street right-of-way of Yacht Harbor Drive and the nearest portion of the structure shall be 42 inches, as measured from the street side of the wall, fence or berm.
  3. The pool and spa area shall be enclosed with a fence, consistent with the standards of Section 17.76.030(E)(3) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.
  4. The permitted grading quantities for the house and accessory structures shall be as follows:
  5. Area

    Cut

    Fill

    Total Earth Movement

    Net Earth Movement

    House

    11,724 CY

    3,836 CY

    15,560 CY

    <7,888 CY>

    Remedial

    10,350 CY

    10,350 CY

    20,700 CY

    0 CY

    Total

    22,074 CY

    14,186 CY

    36,260 CY

    <7,888 CY>

    The maximum depth of cut shall be 25 feet and the maximum depth of fill shall be 9 feet. Rough and final grade certification required.

  6. Maximum driveway slopes shall not exceed 20 percent.
  7. The applicant shall furnish the City with copies of landfill receipts for the approved export of 7,888 cubic yards of material prior to Building Permit final.
  8. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, and shall not exceed 2,000 W incandescent (or equivalent). No single lighting fixture may exceed 150 W incandescent (or equivalent).
  9. Prior to the commencement of construction of any residential structure(s), the realignment of Yacht Harbor Drive shall be completed and the roadway opened to traffic.
  10. Realignment of Yacht Harbor Drive

  11. The permitted grading quantities for the realignment of Yacht Harbor Drive shall be as follows:
  12. Area

    Cut

    Fill

    Total Earth Movement

    Net Earth Movement

    Road

    4,800 CY

    4,800 CY

    9,600 CY

    0 CY

The maximum depth of cut shall be 12 feet and the maximum depth of fill shall be 7 feet. Rough and final grade certification required.

  1. Maximum private roadway slopes shall not exceed 20 percent (maximum 10 percent slope proposed).
  2. The maximum new slope adjacent to the roadway shall be 67 percent (maximum 50 percent proposed).
  3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit the street and storm drain improvement plans to the Director of Public Works for review and approval.
  4. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the appropriate approvals for the relocation of other utility infrastructure and/or easements in conjunction with the road realignment, including but not limited to: electric, gas, sewer, water, telephone and cable television. The applicant shall provide evidence of authorization from the affected utility providers to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and the Director of Public Works prior to grading permit issuance.
  5. The applicant shall coordinate traffic control with the homeowners’ associations in the upper and lower Portuguese Bend Club communities so as to minimize inconvenience to residents during the grading for the new road alignment.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:(NO ITEMS)



NEW BUSINESS:





3. GRADING PERMIT NO. 2191: Larry Peha (applicant) and Mr. and Mrs. Heru Wiredja (owner), 3815 Palos Verdes Drive South (AM).

Requested Action:Clarify the intent of Condition No. 19 adopted by the Planning Commission at its October 9th meeting under P.C. Resolution No. 2001-36.

Recommendation:Staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm that Condition No. 19 approved under P.C. Resolution No. 2001-36 for Grading Permit No. 2191 requires the applicant to redesign the proposed flat roof over the proposed living room rotunda and entry foyer to a pitched roof.

TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2001

SUBJECT: GRADING PERMIT NO. 2191

Staff Coordinator: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm that Condition No. 19 of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-36 for Grading Permit No. 2191 requires the applicant to re-design the proposed flat roof over the living room rotunda and entry foyer to a pitched roof.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

At their October 9, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission considered Grading Permit No. 2191 to allow the construction of a new 7,691 square foot, split level, single-family residence with 1,643 cubic yards of associated grading on property located at 3815 Palos Verdes Drive South. During the public hearing, the Commission heard public testimony from four (4) speakers, including the project architect. According to the project architect’s testimony, a concern was expressed regarding a condition recommended by Staff that would require the flat roof proposed for the entry foyer and living room to be redesigned to a pitched roof. The architect disagreed with Staff’s recommendation and requested that the Commission delete the condition so that the flat roof proposed for the entry foyer and living room remain as designed. As noted in the attached minutes, the Commission approved the project with no explicit direction to Staff to delete the proposed condition of approval.

Following the October 9th meeting, Staff was contacted by the project architect requesting clarification on the Commission’s action with respect to the condition on redesigning the flat roof to one with a pitched roof. According to the project architect, he was uncertain whether the Commission considered his request to delete the condition. Staff informed the applicant that it was Staff’s understanding that the condition of approval was included in the Commission’s approval of the project since there was no specific direction from the Commission to delete the condition. On November 7, 2001, Staff met with the property owner and his architect to discuss the applicant’s options. Staff informed the applicant that he had the option to attempt a re-design of the roof to meet the condition or seek an interpretation of the Commission’s action pursuant to the "Interpretation Procedure" contained in the City’s Development Code (attached). On November 13, 2001, the applicant submitted an interpretation request along with the appropriate filing fee for review by the Commission.

DISCUSSION

Condition No. 19 (see attachment) of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-36 for Grading Permit No. 2191 that states "the roof above the living room rotunda and the entry feature shall be redesigned with a pitched roof to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement." According to the October 9th Staff Report presented to the Commission, Staff had a concern with the visible appearance of the proposed residence from Palos Verdes Drive South with respect to the proposed flat roof over the entry foyer and the living room rotunda. As indicated in the Staff Report, although the majority of the proposed residence is designed with a flat roof, Staff did not have a concern with the visible appearance of a flat roof from the rear and side elevations, but did have a concern with its appearance from the front elevation, which has a prevalent presence from Palos Verdes Drive South. Staff believes that a flat roof over the living room rotunda and entry foyer disrupts the structure’s cohesive appearance and deters from Staff’s desire to soften the overall appearance of the structure. Therefore, Staff recommended that the Commission impose a condition that would require the applicant redesign the flat roof to one with a pitched roof over the living room rotunda and entry foyer to enhance the visual appearance of the structure as well as minimize the structure’s linear appearance.

As previously noted, during the public hearing, the project architect expressed his client’s disagreement with Staff’s recommendation to redesign the flat roof to one with a pitched roof. Furthermore, the architect requested that the Commission not consider Staff’s recommendation in its motion thereby deleting the condition from the draft Conditions of Approval. The project architect indicated that the purpose of the flat roof was to provide a high ceiling in the living room to enhance ocean views. Although the Commission briefly spoke on this matter, the Commission approved the project with no specific direction to delete the contested condition of approval.

In accordance with the interpretation procedure, "in cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any decision" the Commission shall conduct an interpretation review of the decision in question. The procedure calls for the Commission to review the Director’s interpretation of the decision and either concur with the Director or determine that the subject interpretation may result in a substantive revision to the approved project and require a formal review hearing.

It is the Director’s interpretation that Condition No. 19 for Grading Permit No. 2191 that states "the roof above the living room rotunda and the entry feature shall be redesigned with a pitched roof to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement." was included in the Planning Commission’s approval of the project on October 9, 2001. This is because the draft condition of approval was presented to the Planning Commission on October 9th with a recommendation that it be included as a required condition of approval and despite a request from the project applicant, there was no specific direction from the Commission to delete the condition.

In the event that the Commission determines that the condition was erroneously adopted as part of the project’s approval, Staff recommends that the removal of the condition be considered a substantive revision, thus requiring the revised conditions of approval to be brought back for further discussion at a duly noticed public hearing. However, if the Commission finds that the condition was intended to require the redesign of the flat roof to a pitched roof as recommended by Staff, then such determination may be approved by minute order this evening and the project conditions will remain in full force and effect.

It should be noted that no appeal was filed within the fifteen (15) day appeal period following the Commission’s October 9th action. If the Commission affirms the Director’s interpretation, the applicant may not appeal this decision to the City Council. Furthermore, the applicant must redesign the flat roof to a pitched roof that is deemed satisfactory to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. In the event that the redesigned roof feature does not meet the Director’s satisfaction, the applicant may appeal the Director’s decision to the Planning Commission.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

As previously noted, if the Commission determines that Condition No. 19 should be reconsidered, Staff will agendize this item for a future meeting. Since the amendment involves a modification to a condition adopted at a public hearing, in order to reconsider the condition the Commission must conduct a public hearing noticed similarly to the original hearing, which includes publication in the Peninsula News as well as notifying property owners within a 500 foot radius.

ATTACHMENTS:

  • Conditions of Approval
  • P.C. Minutes from October 9, 2001
  • Development Code Section 17.78.050
  • Applicant’s Letter



4. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT: City. (JR)

Recommendation: Receive a status update from the Neighborhood Compatibility sub-committee.


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:


Staff



5. PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2001.


Commission


ADJOURNMENT:


The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,
December 11, 2001, 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.