PC RES 2004-046P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2004-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS A SITE
PLAN REVIEW, VARIANCE, AND EXTREME SLOPE PERMIT (CASE NO.
ZON2004-00072) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 520 SQUARE FOOT
FIRST STORY ADDITION, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 32 SQUARE FOOT
FRONT PORCH ENCROACHING 5'-0" INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT
YARD SETBACK, WAIVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TWO -CAR
GARAGE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 120 SQUARE FOOT DECK,
CANTELIVERING 2'-0" INTO AN EXTREME SLOPE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1949 JAYBROOK DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2004, Site Plan Review Case No. ZON2004-00072
was submitted to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for
processing, and,
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2004, the application was deemed incomplete due to
insufficient information on the submitted plans, including the need to submit a Variance
and Extreme Slope Permit applications, and,
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2004, the application was deemed complete by
Staff, and,
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2004 the required public notices forthe October 26, 2004
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 October 9,
2004; 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 Site Plan Review,
Variance, and Extreme Slope Permit (Case No. ZON2004-00072) 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 October 26, 2004, 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 proposed improvements comply with the City's Development
Code requirements in terms of height, side and rear setbacks, and lot coverage.
Section 2: That the proposed structure will be compatible with the immediate
neighborhood in terms of scale since the proposed structure's size will be within the range
of the structure sizes found in the immediate neighborhood
Section 3: That the proposed structure will be compatible with the immediate
neighborhood in terms of architectural style since the proposed finished materials are
similar to the finished materials found on the homes within the immediate neighborhood
Section 4: That the proposed structure will be compatible with the immediate
neighborhood in terms of front, side and rear setback since the proposed structure will
maintain the front and side setbacks, and the rear setback reduction will not be significant,
since the subject property is more than 185'-0" deep
Section 5: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which
do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district for granting the
Variance to encroach into the required front setback by 5-0" since the existing residence
was constructed under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County with a 15'-0" front yard
setback, and any improvements to the front of the residence will not conform to the current
development standard.
Section 6: That the Variance to encroach into the required front setback by 5'-0"
is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the
same zoning district since the property currently contains a front porch, which encroaches
into the required front yard setback and other properties within the immediate
neighborhood also contain front porches.
Section 7: That granting the variance to encroach into the required front setback
by S-0" will not be materially detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to property and
improvements in the area in which the property is located since the proposed 32 square
foot front porch will be smaller than the existing 51 square foot front porch, the proposed
porch will not encroach closer to the front property line than the existing residence, and
since the substandard setback has not been identified as a problem since the existing
residence was constructed in the 1960's, nor does it pose as a problem currently.
Section 8: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which
do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district for granting the
requested Variance to waive the requirement for a garage containing two enclosed parking
PC Resolution No. 2004-46
SPR, VAR, ES Case No. ZON2004-00072
Page 2 of 4
spaces since the existing building pad would not be able to accommodate a one or two -car
garage, unless the garage encroached into the required east side yard setback.
Section 9: That the Variance to waive the requirement for a garage containing
two enclosed parking spaces is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property
owners under like conditions in the same zoning districts since permits were issued under
the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County to allow many homes in the immediate
neighborhood to convert the original one -car garage into living space and to construct
carports.
Section 10: That granting the variance to waive the requirement for a garage
containing two enclosed parking spaces will not be materially detrimental to the public's
welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is
located since a new garage with a substandard side yard setback, such as a garage, would
be more detrimental to the property located to the east of the subject property than waiving
the requirement to provide a two car garage, and since the property will be required to
maintain two outdoor parking spaces on the side yard at all Mmes to provide off-street
parking
Section 11: That the Variance request is not contrary to the goals and policies of
the General Plan because the development of accessory structures for single-family
residences is consistent with this underlying land use designation
Section 12: That the site cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed 120
square foot deck except on an extreme slope since the existing residence and proposed
addition will take up most of the flat portion of the rear yard, leaving a flat area of
approximately 262 square feet in the east side yard, which is required to be maintained as
two outdoor parking spaces all times, and not useable as outdoor gathering space
Section 13: That the proposed 120 square foot deck over the extreme slope will
result in no significant adverse effect on neighboring properties since the deck will not
impair the views from surrounding properties and since the deck will not be supported on
the slope, therefore not cause any slope instability or increase runoff
Section 14: That the 120 square foot deck will not result in an unreasonable
infringement of privacy of the occupants of abutting residences since the deck will not be
visible from the properties to the front, the property to the west is at a much higher
elevation, and the deck is sufficiently setback from the east side and rear property lines.
Section 15: That disturbance to the slope will be insignificant since the deck will
not be supported on the slope
Section 16: That the permit is consistent with the General Plan since the deck is
an important feature to the property because it increases the use of outdoor space while
P.C. Resolution No. 2004-46
SPR, VAR, ES Case No ZON2004-00072
Page 3 of 4
not producing significant adverse impacts to adjacent properties.
Section 17: 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 Site Plan
Review, Variance, and Extreme Slope Permit(Case No. 2004-00072)for the construction
of a 520 square foot first story addition, for the construction of a 32 square foot front porch
encroaching 5'-0" into the required front yard setback,for the construction of a 120 square
foot deck which cantilevers 2'-0"into the extreme slope,and for waiving the requirement for
a garage containing two enclosed parking spaces.
Section 18: 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 October 26, 2004,
the date of the Planning Commission's final action.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2004, by the following
vote:
AYES: Gerstner, Karp, Perestam, rTetreault
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Knight, Cote, Mueller
Craig Mueller
Chairman
... 11111J116)
Jo- Roj.s, AICP
Di ector Plannin• uilding and
Coe E►forcement; and, Secretary
to the 'fanning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2004-46
SPR,VAR, ES Case No.ZON2004-00072
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval
Variance and Grading Permit
Case No. ZON2004-00072
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
1
4 The Director of Planning, Budding 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 coonstruction 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. All 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 found that there is no foliage on the subject property that exceeds
sixteen (16) feet in height and significantly impairs views from neighboring properties. Therefore,
Staff finds that no foliage shall be removed under this application request
13 Any work or structures proposed within the public right-of-way of Jaybrook Drive requires the
approval of the Public Works Department
14 At least 50% of the existing interior and exterior walls or existing square footage of the structure
shall be retained by the approved project Otherwise, any nonconformities existing at the time of
Planning approval shall be corrected as a part of the project
15. Approval of Site Plan Review and Variance (Case No ZON2004-00072) allows for the
construction of a 520 square foot first story addition to an existing 1,095 square foot residence
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.
16. The proposed structure is proposed at a maximum height of 16.5', as measured from the point
where the lowest foundation meets finished grade (98.2'), and 11 2', as measured from the
highest grade covered by structure (103.5') to the top of the proposed highest ridge (114 T).
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 BY A
CERTIFIED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL BE SUBMITTED.
17. The proposed new addition, front porch, and rear deck approved under this permit shall maintain
the following minimum setbacks.
Front 20'-0" (proposed: 15'-0" — for porch only)
East Side. 5'-0" (proposed 9'-8")
West Side. 5'-0" (proposed. 5'-8")
Rear 15'-0" (proposed 118'-8")
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, FRONT SETBACK CERTIFICATION BY A
CERTIFIED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL BE SUBMITTED.
18 The subject property shall not exceed a maximum lot coverage of fifty (50) percent, as required
by the RS -4 zoning district (proposed 21.6%)
19 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
20. The required twenty (20) foot front yard setback area shall be at least fifty (50) percent
landscaped.
21 Approval of Extreme Slope Permit (Case No ZON2004-00072) allows for the construction of a
120 square foot deck, cantilevering 2'-0" over an extreme slope
22 The proposed deck cantilevering over the extreme slope shall not exceed 120 square feet.
23. No permanent structures shall be constructed and/or placed on the deck that cantilevers over
the extreme slope.
24 The subject property must maintain two outdoor parking areas on the subject property at all
times Specifically, the property must maintain two parking spaces in the east side yard, each
space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth. The spaces must be completely
Exhibit "A!'- Conditions of Approval
SPR, VAR, ES Case No. ZON2004-00072
Page 2 of 3
contained behind the front facade of the existing structure, which is located 18'-6" from the front
property line
25 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, SUBJECT TO REVIEW
AND APPROVAL BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE
ENFORCEMENT, the driveway located on the west portion of the front yard area shall be
removed and replaced with landscaping. In addition, the driveway apron shall be removed and
the curb reinstated after obtaining the appropriate permits from the Department of Public Works
Exhibit "A!— Conditions of Approval
SPR, VAR, ES Case No. ZON2004-00072
Page 3 of 3