PC RES 2002-031P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS A HEIGHT
VARIATION, VARIANCE, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2002-
00361) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,025 SQUARE FOOT FIRST
STORY ADDITION AND A NEW 1,312 SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,531.5 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE, AND
TO LEGALIZE A NON -PERMITTED 672.5 SQUARE FOOT STORAGE,
GUEST ROOM, CABANA, AND SAUNA, A NON -PERMITTED 200
SQUARE FOOT GREENHOUSE, A NON -PERMITTED 128 SQUARE FOOT
VIEW HOUSE, AND TWO NON -PERMITTED TRELLISES, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4372 ADMIRABLE DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2002, the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement approved Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit Case No ZON2001-00056
to allow the submittal of the necessary Planning Department applications to request
approval for a 1,025 square foot first story addition and a new 1,392 square foot second
story addition to an existing 2,531.5 square foot residence, and to legalize a non -permitted
672 5 square foot storage, guest room, cabana, and sauna, a non -permitted 200 square
foot greenhouse, and a non -permuted 128 square foot view house, and,
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2002, Height Variation Permit, Variance and Site Plan
Review Case No ZON2002-00361 was submitted to the Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement Department for processing, and,
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2002, the applications were deemed complete by
Staff; and,
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2002 the required public notices for the November
12, 2002 Planning Commission meeting were mailed to property owners within a 500 foot
radius of the subject property, and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on
September 28, 2002, 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 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 Planning Commission found no evidence that the Variance, Height
Variation, and Site Plan Review (Case No ZON2002-00361) would have a significant effect
on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically
exempt under Class 1 (Existing Structures) since the project involves an addition to an
existing residential structure; 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
November 12, 2002, at which time all interested parties were given an 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: That the applicant successfully completed the Early Neighborhood
Consultation process by obtaining signatures of 15 of the 32 properties within the 500'
radius, which is 47%, and 6 of the 8 properties within the 100' radius, which is 75%.
Section 2: The subject lot is not located in an area designated by the City's
General Plan and the City's Coastal Specific Plan as a viewing area and therefore the
proposed structure does not impair any public views
Section 3: The subject lot not located on a ridge, which is defined as an
elongated crest or linear series of crest of hills, bluffs or highlands In addition, the subject
property is not located on a promontory, which is defined as a prominent mass of land that
overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides
Section 4: The proposed project will not create view impairment from surrounding
properties because properties located to the east and northeast of the subject property
contain an unobstructed view of the ocean toward the south and west and the proposed
addition will only impair a minimal portion of the ocean view or Peninsula toward the west.
Section 5: The proposed addition will not cause a cumulative view impairment
because if the four closest parcels to the subject property were to develop a second story
addition, the properties on Exultant Drive will still maintain an open ocean view to the south
and west
Section 6: The proposed structure has been designed to minimize the impairment
of views from surrounding properties because the proposed project does not significantly
impair a view from the surrounding properties
Section 7: The proposed structure will comply with the front, one side and rear
setback requirements, as well as the lot coverage requirement However, with the approval
of the Variance to allow for the reduction of a side setback and the Height Variation to allow
for a second story addition, the proposed addition will be constructed in accordance with
the residential development guidelines of the City's Municipal Code. Furthermore, in
addition to obtaining Planning approval, building permits must also be obtained for
compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the Development Code and the City's
Municipal Code.
Section 8: The proposed project is compatible with the scale of surrounding
residences because although the proposed project will be larger than the 10 closest homes,
the location of the property, at the end of a cul-de-sac street, the pie -shaped lot, and large
front yard setback proposed for the second story addition reduces the appearance of the
P.0 Resolution No. 2002-31
Page 2 of 5
actual size of the proposed residence. As such, the apparent bulk and mass of the
proposed addition will be compatible with the apparent bulk and mass of the homes found
in the neighborhood Therefore, although the proposed home will be larger than the
surrounding homes, the design of the proposed project creates an apparent bulk, mass and
scale that are in keeping with the scale of the surrounding residences.
Section 9: The proposed project is compatible with the architectural style and
material of the surrounding residences because the proposed structure is proposed to be a
prairie style home, which is the precedent of the ranch architectural style, which is the
dominant style in the neighborhood.
Section 10: The proposed project is compatible with the front yard setbacks of the
surrounding residences because the surrounding properties were developed under Los
Angeles County's jurisdiction, as such, some properties such as the subject property were
not developed with the required 20' front yard setback. However, by developing the second
story addition with more than the required 20' front yard setback, this project will comply
with the Code requirement, as well as be consistent with the front yard setbacks found in
the surrounding properties.
Section 11: The requested Variance is warranted to allow the non -permitted
addition to remain within the required side yard setback because the subject property was
developed under the County, not in accordance with the City's setback requirements and
that although the addition appears to have been developed without permits, denying the
Variance and requiring the existing non -permitted addition to be moved 2'-0" would still
leave a house that is non -conforming. This is a situation that does not generally apply to
other properties within the same zoning district, since in most areas where illegal additions
are found to conflict with the Code, the remaining residence is already in conformance
Section 12: The requested Variance is warranted to allow the non -permitted
addition to remain within the required side yard setback because Seaview Tract was
developed under Los Angeles County's jurisdiction, prior to the City's incorporation, and
therefore many properties in the tract, including the subject property, were developed with
substandard setbacks Since the non -permitted addition is an existing part of the structure
and not a new proposed addition, this Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right, which is possessed by other property owners,
and not a granting of a special privilege to the property owners, since other properties
contain substandard setbacks
Section 13: The requested Variance is warranted to allow the non -permitted
addition to remain within the required side yard setback because the substandard setback
has not been identified as a problem since the addition has been constructed, nor does it
pose as a problem currently, the applicants will be required to obtain a Building Permit from
the Building and Safety Division, which will address Building and Safety issues, therefore
the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to the property and improvements in the area in which the property is located.
P.C. Resolution No. 2002-31
Page 3 of 5
Section 14: The requested Variance is warranted to allow the non -permitted view
house to remain within the required side yard setback since denying the Variance and
requiring the existing non -permitted view house to be moved 4'-0" away from the property
line would still leave a property that is non -conforming Since the existing residence was
developed with non -conforming setback, there are extraordinary circumstances to the
subject property that would warrant a Variance to allow the view house to remain at its
present location.
Section 15: The requested Variance is warranted to allow the non -permitted view
house to remain within the required side yard setback since many properties in the Seaview
Tract were improved with substandard setback As such, the Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, which is possessed by other
property owners, and not a granting of a special privilege to the property owners, since
other properties contain substandard setbacks
Section 16: The requested Variance is warranted to allow the non -permitted view
house to remain within the required side yard setback the view house is not readily visible
from the street of access or the surrounding neighbors, and since the view house has not
been identified as a problem since its construction, nor does it pose as a problem currently.
Additionally, the applicants will be required to obtain a Building Permit from the Building
and Safety Division, which will address Building and Safety issues.
Section 17: The requested Variance is warranted because the development of
accessory structures and additions for single-family residences is consistent with this
underlying land use designation, and the improvements are not inconsistent with the
General Plan's goals and policies.
Section 18: The existing greenhouse, the existing two trellises located in the rear
yard, and the proposed two trellises located in the front yard comply with the code
requirement in terms of setbacks, height, and lot coverage
Section 19. 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 with conditions Height
Variation, Variance, and Site Plan Review (Case No 2002-00361) for the construction of a
1,025 square foot first story addition and a new 1,312 square foot second story addition to
an existing 2,531.5 square foot residence (including a two -car garage), and to legalize
672.5 square feet of non -permitted construction.
Section 20: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council Pursuant to Section 17.80 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 26 ,
2002, the date of the Planning Commission's final action.
P.C. Resolution No. 2002-31
Page 4 of 5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of November 2002, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Lyon, Duran Reed, Tomblin, and Chairman Cartwright
NOES: commissioner Mueller
ABSTENTIONS: Vice Chair Long
ABSENT: Commissioner Cote
�oel pjas, A
Pirecyor of PInji g, Building and
U -d6
Enforce tand, Secretary
to the Planning Commission
Joh S Cartwright I
Planning Commission Chairman
P.0 Resolution No. 2002- 31
Page 5 of 5
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval
Height Variation, Variance, and Site Plan Review
Case No. ZON2002-00361
1. The applicant/property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing that they
have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below. Failure
to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days of the effective date of
approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The approval shall become null and void after one (1) year from the date of approval
unless the approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to
initiate the "plan check" review process, pursuant to Section 17.86.070 of the City's
Development Code. This approval shall become null and void if, after initiating the
"plan check" review process, or receiving a building permit to begin construction,
said "plan check" or permit is allowed to expire or is withdrawn by the applicant.
3. The abandonment or non-use of this approval after a period of one (1) year shall
terminate the approval and any privileges hereunder shall become null and void.
4. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make
minor modifications to the approved preliminary plans or any of the conditions if such
modifications shall achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance
with said plans and conditions.
5. The project shall substantially conform to the plans stamped approved with the
effective date of this approval.
6. Permitted hours of construction are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday. No work is permitted on Sundays or legal holidays.
7. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties 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 is not
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.
8. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in
conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.
9. No grading is approved or allowed under this permit approval.
10.A11 applicable soils/geotechnical reports required by the Building and Safety Division
shall be obtained by the applicant and approved by the City's geologist prior to
building permit issuance.
11.All applicable permits required by the Building and Safety Division shall be obtained
by the applicant.
12.Based on a site visit, Staff determined that the two pine trees located in the rear yard
and the olive tree located in the front yard significantly impair the ocean view from
the properties located on 4362 Exultant Drive, 4354 Exultant Drive, and 4348
Exultant Drive. Therefore, the crown of the pine trees in the rear yard shall be raised
to the bottom of the fronds of the palm tree (also located in the rear yard), and the
crown of the olive tree (located in the front yard) shall be lowered to the height of the
existing ridgeline. After the trimming of the above mentioned foliage, if the olive tree
located in the rear yard significantly impairs a ocean view, as determined by Staff
based on a subsequent site visit, then the crown of the olive tree in the rear yard
shall also be lowered to the height of the existing ridgeline
Height Variation and Variance
13.Approval of Height Variation and Variance (Case No. ZON2002-00361) allows for
the construction of a 1,025 square foot first story addition and a new 1,312 square
foot second story addition to an existing 2,531.5 square foot residence (including a
two-car garage), and the legalization of 672.5 square feet of non-permitted
construction to be located 3'-0" from the north side property line.
14.The total square footage of the proposed structure shall not exceed 5,541 square
feet. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, SUBJECT
TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING,
AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A STRUCTURE
SIZE CERTIFICATION BY A CERTIFIED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR
SHALL BE SUBMITTED.
15.Any conversion of the existing enclosed non-habitable space into habitable space,
such that the resulting square footage of habitable space is more than 5,000 sq.ft.,
shall not be allowed without approval and provision of a three car garage on the
subject property.
16. The proposed two-story additions are proposed to be constructed at a height of
23.32', as measured from the finished grade adjacent to the lowest foundation
(104.89') to the highest ridge (128.21'), and 21.51', as measured from the highest
elevation to be covered by structure (106.70') to the highest ridge. The applicants
propose to modify the roof over the existing garage, such that the existing garage is
at a height of 13.86', as measured from the finished grade adjacent to the lowest
foundation (104.89') to the ridge (118.75'), and 12.05', as measured from the highest
elevation to be covered by structure (106.70') to the ridge. PRIOR TO THE
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND
APPROVAL BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE
ENFORCEMENT AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A HEIGHT CERTIFICATION OF
THE TWO STORY PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE, BY A CERTIFIED CIVIL
ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL BE SUBMITTED.
Exhibit"A"—Conditions of Approval
HV,VAR, and SPR Case No.ZON2002-00361
Page 2 of 4
17.The proposed new additions approved under this permit shall maintain the following
minimum setbacks:
Front: 20'-0" (proposed: 54'-6")
North Side: 5'-0" (proposed: ± 26'-0")
South Side: 5'-0" (proposed: 5'-10")
Rear: 15'-0" (proposed: >100'-0")
The existing main structure and portions thereof, which were legalized with the
approval of the Variance, shall maintain the following minimum setbacks:
Front: 16'-0"
North Side: 3'-0"
South Side: 4'-10"
Rear: >100'-0"
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, SUBJECT TO
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, SOUTH SIDE SETBACK
CERTIFICATION FOR THE SECOND STORY ADDITION, BY A CERTIFIED CIVIL
ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL BE SUBMITTED.
Site Plan Review
18.Approval of Site Plan Review Case No. ZON2002-00361 is for the legalization of the
existing 200 square foot greenhouse located in the rear yard, the legalization of two
trellises totaling 380 square feet, and the construction of two trellises located in the
front yard, one measuring 465 square feet and the other trellis measuring 126
square feet.
19.The proposed accessory structures shall maintain the following minimum setbacks:
.. ...................., .. ,. ,.. au .:r..r.,,.., .. ],..,.,....r...v.:..,•.•:. .. ,,..,. .. .. rc}r2. :tt. :':�: a}rom;}9,y,:iA
•
...x.�. ....n. ...,r. T .... .n.w.A.,v.v.. .t.. ... .. ,. x ......,.......... .. ... Y... of .:{'4 - f ..: - ..,*£..
• ,. x.... ...t... 'tft .Y,v.:::..wku.v..)...v4.�i.v: .d..... , �'.e: .:.::rc ..0. .4...
-
.:. _.....d, <,,a�...$.�M,�4 .YT:.r:: ,,v:::.-S� :... ;l:S:�. �. � Fp ..Y"?kg:•l r ;];�:, �.
....n ....:tet. .. •..::..�,`�,,....�. M-�¢ .. .r.. , � ..
.,k, ...,.<... .. .. ..4 r. v ,.. .,...r......rT.?x:... ..v. .a.. �. '"ise
r.Sdf
, .........k .... ..... ....... ..:........ :...........................?--.:t:. .:}_-:.moi.
... ...`A.lvu......... ....v..]. ....S• .I. .... } ......?x,......... ..?i}......n..w , ....:. x.ri-Y.
tt�� ... ......:.K,...K..v...,. tx......w................v..,,r. .. -.. :.:-..::_:x:• ,-.,f..';:.. .. :>r--:
An�C :{�`8,� ...,t..... ..... ...,,r..r.,._�......`.�,..'�'.�"... .........,.,�k 2lt+t ✓.................................. .o• ...'6-,-`...... .-:t...l.T.�6'.-,.,:..3.,.,.,..�....a..,.a
.,.....t�.s........,.,t....... ..-.:.,.,,.5•::-:::..,�.-:.,.::.w::::::::::.:.,-:a:. •'�:.•:h.'.,Uv.,...:.....}.:_!k�r,,,,,......:Y. ..,.....,..... r..f.... .r,{.Y. .,,....,-,. .....-'a....,,.....x�,.............r....„k•,.. ,
,,,
Code Requirement 20.0' 5.0' 15.0'
Greenhouse NA 19.5' 68.5'
Front Trellis 1 22.5' 19.0' NA
Front Trellis 247.0' 5.0' NA
i
Rear Trellis 1 NA 20.0' NA
Rear Trellis 2 ! NA 22.0' NA
'NA=Not Applicable—substantial distance that exceeds requirement
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, SUBJECT TO
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, SIDE SETBACK
CERTIFICATION FOR THE 126 SQUARE FOOT TRELLIS BY A CERTIFIED CIVIL
ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL BE SUBMITTED.
Exhibit"A"—Conditions of Approval
HV,VAR, and SPR Case No.ZON2002-00361
Page 3of4
20.The subject property shall not exceed a maximum lot coverage of fifty (50) percent,
as required by the RS-4 zoning district (proposed 25.9%).
21.All structures located within the required twenty (20) foot front yard setback area
shall not exceed a height of forty-two (42) inches in height.
22.The required twenty (20) foot front yard setback area shall be at least fifty (50)
percent landscaped.
23.No improvements shall be permitted on "extreme slopes" (35% or greater).
24.In the event of any future additional enclosed square footage to the subject property,
the applicant shall bring the subject property into conformance with the Development
Code and provide a three car garage.
Variance
25.Approval of the Variance Permit Case No. ZON2002-00361 allows for the existing
128 square foot view house to remain at 1-0" from the side property line.
26.PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SHALL
SUBMIT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AN APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT, so that the existing view house is not straddling a property line and
is located entirely on one property and in compliance with the setback requirements.
Exhibit"A"—Conditions of Approval
HV,VAR, and SPR Case No.ZON2002-00361
Page 4 of 4