PC RES 2008-037 P.C. RESOLUTION . 2008- 7
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOSE ITI LL
APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION I
PERMIT(PLANNING CASE NO.Z 2006-00643) FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION F A NEW, 5,852-SQUARE-FOOT, 2-
STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND 781 CUBIC
YARDS F RELATED GRADING, LOCATED AT 1
ROCKINGHORSE ROAD
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2006, the applicant, Paul Chen, submitted an
application for Planning Case No. ZON2006-00643 for a height variation and grading
permit to allow the construction of a new, 2-story single-family residence on a vacant lot on
Rockinghorse Road in the Rockinghorse Road community; and,
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2008, the application for Planning Case
No. ZON2006-00643 was deemed complete by Staff; 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 the approval of the requested height variation and
grading would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed
project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303); 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 July 8, 2008, and July 22, 2008, at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,
WHEREAS, at the July 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting, the proposed
project was continued without discussion to July 22, 2008, due to the lateness of the hour;
and,
WHEREAS, at the July 22, 2008, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commission reviewed the applicant's proposal for a new 6,477-square-foot 2-story single-
family residence and Staff's recommendation of denial without prejudice on the basis of
neighborhood incompatibility; directed the applicant to re-design the project to address the
apparent bulk and mass of the southwesterly corner of the house; agreed with the
applicant to a 90-day extension of the decision deadline under the Permit Streamlining Act;
and continued the public hearing to September 23, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2008, the applicant met with Staff to discuss possible
project modifications to address the issue of bulk and mass; and,
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2008, the applicant submitted revised project plans
that provide additional visual articulation of the 2-story southwesterly corner of the
proposed house and have reduced its overall size by four hundred ninety square feet
(490 SF); and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed continued public
hearing on September 23, 2008, at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,
WHEREAS, at the September 23, 2008, Planning Commission meeting, the
Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's revised proposal for a new 5,987-square-
foot 2-story single-family residence and Staff's recommendation of conditional approval;
directed the applicant to re-design the project to address the height and apparent bulk and
mass of the house; and continued the public hearing to October 14, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2008, the applicant submitted further revised project
plans that provide additional visual articulation of the 2-story southwesterly corner of the
proposed house, have further reduced its overall size by one hundred thirty-five square feet
(135 SF) and have lowered its overall height by one foot (1'-0"); and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed continued public
hearing on October 14, 2008, 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 application for a height variation to allow the construction of a 5,852-square-
foot, 2-story single-family residence on the subject property:
A. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process
established by the City by obtaining property owners' acknowledgement signatures
from 25% of the property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property
and 70% of the property owners within a 100-foot radius of the subject property.
B. The proposed structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not significantly
impair a view from public property(parks, major thoroughfares, bikeways,walkways
or equestrian trails), which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal
Specific Plan, as City-designated viewing areas because the subject property is not
directly overlooked by any park, major thoroughfare, bikeway, walkway or
P.C. Resolution No. 2008-37
Page 2 of 12
equestrian trail identified in the City's General Plan as a City-designated viewing
area.
C. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory; rather, the subject
property is a graded pad lot surrounded by similar pad lots that were all created
when the neighborhood was originally graded and developed in the early 1950s to
early 1960s.
D. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height, when considered
exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing
area of another parcel. As a result of the mailed and published notices and the
temporary silhouette, the City received two (2) letters from nearby property owners
objecting to the proposed project on the basis of view impacts during the 30-day
public comment period: the Pocapalia residence at 14 Rockinghorse Road and the
Bradley residence at 2809 Via EI Miro. For the Pocapalia residence, the best and
most important views are from the 1 st-floor living room and dining room in the main
residence, which both have views of the Vincent Thomas Bridge and the Los
Angeles/Long Beach port complex to the east. From the viewing area, the
uppermost foot or so of the temporary silhouette is just visible above the roof of the
detached pool house, which is in the immediate foreground of the view. The
proposed project does not exceed the 16-foot height limit as measured from the
existing pad elevation; it only exceeds the 20-foot height limit as measured from the
point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade. Since the proposed project
does not exceed the 16-foot height limit, this finding can be made since no portion
of the proposed project above the 16-foot level impairs the view from the viewing
area at 14 Rockinghorse Road. For the Bradley residence, the easterly view of the
Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex from the picture window in the living room is
the best and most important view. From the viewing area,the temporary silhouette
is not visible from the picture window, although it is visible from two (2) smaller
windows flanking the fireplace on the north side of the living room that is not the
best and most important view. Furthermore, since the proposed project does not
exceed the 16-foot height limit, this finding can be made since no portion of the
proposed project above the 16-foot level impairs the view from the viewing area at
2809 Via EI Miro.
E. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application. The proposed project does not exceed the 16-foot height limit, and
similar additions to surrounding, adjacent residences would result in no view
impairment either.
F. The proposed structure complies with all Code requirements, including the RS-2
zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage and setbacks for
City-created lots, and the off-street parking requirements for single-family
residences.
P.C. Resolution No. 2008-37
Page 3 of 12
G. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in
terms of the scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot
coverage of the residence; architectural styles, including facade treatments,
structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or
mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials; and front-, side-,
and rear-yard setbacks. Although the revised residence would still be the largest
home in the immediate neighborhood, as viewed from Rockinghorse Road it will be
set back over thirty feet(30'-0")from the roadway and will have the appearance of a
1-story structure,with the 2-story facades of the project most visible from properties
on Via EI Miro across the canyon to the south. The revised 5,852-square-foot
proposal is now only ten percent (10%) larger that the abutting residence at 18
Rockinghorse Road, which is currently the largest home in the immediate
neighborhood,whereas it was previously twelve percent(12%) larger. The building
footprint has been slightly reduced, resulting in less lot coverage than the previous
proposal. In terms of bulk and mass, the revised project has broken up the 2-story
facades near the southwesterly corner of the house by "notching" the corner,
including a 1-story "pop-out" on the lower level, and recessing the facade of the
lower-level bedroom. These changes have helped to further relieve the blankness
and severity of this 2-story portion of the house as viewed from the properties to the
south. Finally,the proposed residence complies with the setbacks requirements for
this City-created lot, which are more restrictive than those for most of the
surrounding lots in the RS-2 zoning district.
H. The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy
of the occupants of abutting residences. The upper-level west facade facing 14
Rockinghorse Road includes only small bathroom windows. Given the difference in
elevation between this property and the property at 16 Rockinghorse Road, the
proposed windows will provide no visibility into private indoor or outdoor living areas
at 14 Rockinghorse Road. The upper-level east facade facing 18 Rockinghorse
Road includes windows in the pantry, kitchen and breakfast nook. The proposed
windows in this area of the home overlook the rear yard and balcony areas of the
home at 18 Rockinghorse Road, so they have been modified by the applicant to
eliminate any unreasonable privacy infringement. The upper-level south facade
facing toward 2809 Via EI Miro and 2801 Via EI Miro includes windows and
balconies. However, these windows and balconies are designed and oriented to
take advantage of views down the canyon toward the harbor, and not across the
canyon toward the abutting residences.
Section 2. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with
respect to the application for a grading permit for 781 cubic yards of grading for the
construction of the proposed single-family residence on the subject property:
A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use
of the lot. Based upon the underlying RS-2 zoning designation, the primary
P.C. Resolution No. 2008-37
Page 4 of 12
permitted use of the property is for single-family residential development. The site
was previously improved with a guest house and detached garage that served the
abutting residence at 18 Rockinghorse Road. Most of the proposed grading would
occur within the footprint of the proposed residence.
B. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely
affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the "viewing area" of
neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for anew residence or
an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the
proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such
that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section
17.02.040(B)of this Title, is lower than a structure that could have been built in the
same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing) grade. As
discussed above in the Height Variation findings, the proposed project has no
impacts upon views from the viewing area of any nearby residences. Furthermore,
the proposed grading would lower the grade within the building footprint such that
the maximum height of the new residence will be lower than it could have been
without the proposed grading.
C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural. The "natural" contours of the subject
property are the result of the grading of the lot when it was originally developed in
the early 1950s. With the exception of the building footprint and the motorcourt
area, the remainder of the property will largely retain its original graded contours.
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and
appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or
manufactured slope into the natural topography. There is no evidence that any
significant natural topographic features will be disturbed or destroyed by the
proposed grading.
E. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. As discussed above in the
Height Variation findings, Staff believes that the revised residence is now
compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood in terms of the
project's size and scale, as well as the apparent bulk and mass of the southwesterly
portion of the house.
F. 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 the visual effects of grading and construction
on hillside areas, is not applicable to the proposed project.
P.C. Resolution No. 2008-37
Page 5 of 12
G. 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.
H. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. There is no evidence
that any natural landscape or wildlife habitat will be disturbed or destroyed by the
proposed grading.
I. The grading conforms with the minimum standards for finished slope, upslope
retaining wall location and height, and driveway slope established under Section
17.76.040(E)(8) of the Development Code.
J. Pursuant to Section 17.76.040(E)(9)(c) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code, the proposed 10-foot depth of cut and fill is reasonable and necessary.
Grading down the pad within the footprint of the proposed building allows for a
structure that is lower than would otherwise be permitted without the proposed
grading.
K. The proposed grading deviates from City standards regarding the height of the
retaining walls adjacent to the driveway, in the westerly side yard and downslope
from the proposed residence. Such deviations may be granted based upon the
following additional findings:
1. The criteria of subsections (E)(1)through (E)(8)of Section 17.76.040(E)are
satisfied. As discussed above in the Grading Permit findings, all of the
criteria (E)(1) through (E)(8) are satisfied by the revised project.
2. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of
Section 17.76.040. Among the stated purposes of the City's grading
regulations are to "[permit] reasonable development of land..."; to "[ensure]
that the development of each parcel of land...occurs in a manner
harmonious with adjacent lands..."; and to "[ensure] that each project
complies with the goals and polices of the General Plan...." The proposed
grading is consistent with these purposes because it will allow for the
reasonable development of a legal lot in an established residential
neighborhood. This will be consistent with the Residential 1-2 DU/acre land
use designation for the area.
3. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) of Section 17.76.040(E)
will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity. The height of the upslope wall adjacent
to the motorcourt exceeds the 5-foot height standard by less than two feet
(2'-0"). In addition,this wall does not exceed the 8-foot standard for upslope
P.C. Resolution No. 2008-37
Page 6 of 12
retaining walls in general. The 5'/2-foot-tall portion of the upslope retaining
wall in the side yard occurs only at the bottom of the at-grade steps;
otherwise, the wall follows the existing grade and does not exceed the 3'/2-
foot height standard. Finally, the small downslope wall below the house
attaches to an existing retaining wall at its east end and "daylights" into the
slope at its west end such that only the center section exceeds the 3°h-foot
height standard. It is not unusual for retaining walls to exceed the
Development Code height standards when new homes are proposed on
sloped lots elsewhere in the City. A review of aerial photographs of the
immediate neighborhood shows that many surrounding properties appearto
have similar retaining walls.
4. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) of Section 17.76.040(E)
will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property. The
applicant will be required to obtain a building permit for the proposed
retaining walls and grading, subject to the review of the City's Building
Official and geotechnical consultant. The City's geotechnical consultant has
already reviewed and conceptually approved a geotechnical report for the
proposed project.
5. Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of
property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given to
only the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the Director's decision
to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission decision to the
City Council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal
Procedures) of Title 17 (Zoning). Public notification of all adjacent property
owners is required for Planning Commission-level approval of a major
grading application whenever it is necessary to make the exception findings
under RPVDC Section 17.76.040(E)(10). Therefore, public notification of the
approval of this application would be provided to the applicant, his architect
and the owners of seven (7) adjacent properties.
Section3: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1)(j)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 October 14, 2008, 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 conditionally approves a height
variation and grading permit(Planning Case No.ZON2006-00643)forthe construction of a
new, 5,852-square-foot, 2-story single-family residence and 781 cubic yards of related
P.C. Resolution No. 2008-37
Page 7 of 12
grading, located at 16 Rockinghorse Road, subject to the conditions of approval in the
attached Exhibit 'A'.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October 2008, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gerstner, Knights Ruttenberg, Tetreault and
Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis and Chairman Perestam
NOES: none
ABSTENTIONS: none
ABSENT: none
RECUSALS: none
Step en Perestam
Chairman
Joel of , AICP
Dire for f Plann g, wilding
andod Enforcement; and,
Secre ry to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2008-3_7
Page 8 of 12
EX I IT
CONDITIONS F APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE 00 -00643
(Chen, 16 RockinghorseRoad)
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. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.
3. This approval is for a new, 5,852-square-foot 2-story single-family residence and
781 cubic yards of related grading on a vacant lot. 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 the height variation and/or grading permit by the
Planning Commission and shall require new and separate environmental review.
4. 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-2 district
development standards of the City's Municipal Code.
5. 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.
6. 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.
P.C. Resolution No. 2008-37
Page 9 of 12
Otherwise, a height variation and/or grading permit revision must be approved prior
to further development.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be
kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 ANI 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. Trucks and other construction vehicles shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday
through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated
above.
11. The following conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 19062 shall apply
to this approval:
a. All site drainage shall be conducted either to the street or to an existing
storm drain system in non-erosive devices (Condition No. 13).
b. All drainage swales shall have the cement colored to earth tones, subject to
the review and approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement (Condition No. 14).
C. 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 property owner's expense (Condition No. 20).
d. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various Municipal
utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property (Condition
No. 21).
P.C. Resolution No. 2008-37
Page 10 of 12
e. Access to the parcel shall be taken from Rockinghorse Road. The proposed
driveway shall be relocated at the property owner's expense if necessary in
conjunction with any future expansion of Rockinghorse Road (Condition
No. 26).
Height Variation Conditions:
12. This approval is for a 5,852-square-foot 2-story single-family residence. BUILDING
AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED,to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or
civil engineer prior to building permit final.
13. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 209.00'. BUILDING HEIGHT
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection.
14. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 33.58' front, 43.83' rear, 10.0'
west side and 10.0'east side. BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED,
to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer priorto foundation forms
inspection.
15. The approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (29.8%
proposed).
16. A minimum 3-car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space
being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of
9' in width and 20' in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance.
Grading Permit Conditions:
17. This approval is for seven hundred eighty-one cubic yards (781 CY) of grading,
composed of five hundred forty-nine cubic yards (549 CY) of cut and two hundred
thirty-two cubic yards (232 CY) of fill, for a net export of three hundred seventeen
cubic yards (317 CY). The maximum depth of cut and fill shall be ten feet (10'-0").
18. The maximum height of the upslope retaining wall adjacent to the
driveway/motorcourt shall be 6.78 feet. The maximum height of the upslope
retaining wall in the westerly side yard shall be 5.50 feet. The maximum height of
the downslope retaining wall below the house shall be 6.50 feet.
19. The maximum driveway slope shall not exceed twenty percent (20%).
20. All grading and retaining walls, including the existing retaining walls on the property
that may remain, shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Building
Official and geotechnical consultant.
P.C. Resolution No. 2008-37
Page 11 of 12
21. RII site drainage facilities shall be subject to final review and approval by the City's
drainage and NPDES consultants.
M:\Projects\ZON2006-00643(Chen, 16 Rockinghorse Rd)\PC Resolution 2008-37.doc
P.C. Resolution No. 2008-37
Page 12 of 12