Loading...
CC RES 2009-093 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE CASE NO. ZON2007-00046 FOR A VARIANCE AND COASTAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AFTER-THE-FACT POOL, SPA, AND OUTDOOR CHIMNEY BARBECUE WITHIN THE COASTAL STRUCTURE SETBACK ZONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 SEA COVE DRIVE. WHEREAS, during 2006 and 2007, the property owner(Brian Conroy)constructed several improvements in the rear yard of his property without the benefit of permits, which included a pool and spa, a barbecue and chimney, trellis, grading, and an 8-foot tall retaining wall at the bluff top that accommodates a viewing area and fire pit; and, WHEREAS, the City's Code Enforcement Division and Building and Safety Division issued several "STOP WORK" orders, and directed the property owner to either remove the improvements or apply for the appropriate entitlements to commence legalization of the after-the-fact improvements; and, WHEREAS, on January 29, 2007, the property owners, Brian and Jenifer Conroy, submitted Case No. ZON2007-00046, consisting of Variance, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit applications for after-the-fact improvements in the rear yard area of 24 Sea Cove Drive; and, WHEREAS, on February 27, 2007, the property owner requested that the applications be put on hold pending the determination of the Coastal Setback Line; and, WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the property owner submitted a request for an Interpretation Procedure (Case No. ZON2007-00253), challenging Staff's interpretation of the location of the Coastal Setback Line for his property at 24 Sea Cove Drive and on properties within the City's Coastal Zone; and, WHEREAS, on June 21, 2007, within the prescribed 30 days of initiating a request for an Interpretation, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement issued a formal Interpretation regarding the issue of the Coastal Setback Line. In summary, the Director established that the Coastal Setback Line for property at 24 Sea Cove Drive is located at 150-feet from the front property line based upon the maps prepared by Earth Sciences Associates (ESA), the firm that compiled the geotechnical information for the City's Coastal Plan. The ESA maps that establish the Coastal Setback Line on individual properties within the Coastal Zone, accompany a report titled, "Geologic Factors Related to a Coastal Set-Back Zone for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California",which was also prepared by ESA in 1976, and are also referenced in the appendix of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, on July 3, 2007, Scott Campbell,the attorney representing the property owners of 24 Sea Cove Drive, submitted an appeal of the Director's formal Interpretation and requested that the appeal hearing be conducted at the August 14, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, thereby relinquishing their right to a hearing within 30 days of their appeal; and, WHEREAS, after the hearing was duly noticed,the Conroy's notified Staff that they would like to exercise their option of accepting Staffs determination of the Coastal Setback Line and continue to pursue their Variance and Coastal Permit applications (Z0N2007- 00046) in an attempt to legalize the after-the-fact construction, and requested that their Interpretation Procedure appeal be held in abeyance; and, WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007 the Planning Commission tabled the appeal hearing to allow the property owner time to process the applications associated with Case No. ZON2007-00046; and, WHEREAS, since the City's Development Code requires that geology reports be submitted and approved by the City Geologist, the property owner worked on obtaining approval of the reports for the after-the-fact pool, spa, chimney, barbecue, and trellis on the subject property, and on October 9, 2008, the City Geologist approved the geology report; and, WHEREAS, after review of the information the project was deemed generally complete by Staff on October 25, 2008; 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), Staff found no evidence that Case No. ZON2007-00046 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) since the structures do not intensify the use of the lot because the property is currently developed with a residential structure and the after-the-fact structures are ancillary to the residential use of the lot; 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 December 11, 2008, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, on December 11, 2008, Mr. Conroy granted a 90-day extension to the deadlines established by the Permit Streamlining Act and the Planning Commission continued the hearing to the February 24, 2009 Planning Commission meeting to allow Resolution No. 2009-93 Page 2 of 6 time for Staff to investigate the allegations of additional unpermitted construction on the subject property at 24 Sea Cove Drive; and, WHEREAS, on February 24, 2009 the Planning Commission conditionally approved Case No. 2007-00046, and a Notice of Decision was prepared and distributed to all interested parties; and, WHEREAS, on March 11, 2009, within fifteen (15) days following the Planning Commission's decision, the adjacent property owner to the east at 22 Sea Cove Drive, Ms. Pamela Simes,filed an appeal to the City Council requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's conditional approval of Case No. ZON2007-00046 based upon the location of the Coastal Setback Line, Staff's position with previous applications, and geology; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 2, 2009, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 15, 2009, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's conditional approval of Case No. ZON2007-00046, and finds as follows: a) There is an exceptional circumstance applicable to the property which does not apply to other property in the same zoning district, which is due to the development pattern of the existing residences on the seaward side of"old"Sea Cove Drive. The subject property is one of four residences on the seaward side of"old"Sea Cove Drive that are constructed in compliance with the requirement to maintain a 25-foot setback from the Coastal Setback Line and thereby not encroach into the Coastal Structure Setback Zone, and all of which are located over 75-feet from the coastal bluff top. The remaining 12 structures along the seawards side of"old" Sea Cove Drive are currently constructed into the Coastal Structure Setback Zone, resulting in residences that are significantly closer to the coastal bluff top than the subject property, some being as close as±30-feet from the coastal bluff top. Thus, due to the development pattern of the residences on the seaward side of the street and the location of the Coastal Setback Line, the only location for the subject property to construct accessory structures is in the rear yard area, which is in the Coastal Structure Setback Resolution No. 2009-93 Page 3 of 6 Zone. Although the swimming pool, spa, chimney, barbecue and trellis are in the rear yard of the subject property, these structures continue to be located farther from the coastal bluff top than other residences on Sea Cove Drive. b) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right since other properties in the RS-2 zoning district do not have such limitations as the subject property and have the ability to construct pools, spas and similar accessory structures in their rear yards. Of 16 properties along "old" Sea Cove Drive, 5 have pools in the rear yards. These properties, located at 16, 28, 32, 42 and 44 Sea Cove Drive, have pools that were existing prior to the City's incorporation. However,two of these properties, located at 16 and 42 Sea Cove Drive, had extensive recent projects that resulted in modifications to the existing pools. Although the pool at 16 Sea Cove Drive was built in 1955, approval was granted in 2005 that allowed a reduction in the size of the pool and a spa. The pool at 42 Sea Cove Drive was also constructed in 1955; however, when the Coastal Setback Line was established, it resulted in a pool that straddles the Coastal Setback Line. In 2000, a project was considered by the Planning Commission that included, among other requests, a request for a Zone Change to relocate the Coastal Setback Line. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the project, which was subsequently approved by the City Council on September 19, 2000.Thus,there have been other residences on the immediate "old" Sea Cove Drive that maintain improvements within the Coastal Structure Setback Zone and have been afforded the ability to maintain and construct such improvements. c) The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare since geology reports for the improvements have been approved and the property owner must obtain the appropriate permits from the Building and Safety Division, who will conduct inspections of the project site. Further, appropriate inspections will be conducted to ensure the pool's structural integrity, as recommended by the geology reports. Furthermore, the geology reports provided by the property owner recommend that the grading and retaining wall at the coastal bluff top be demolished and the slope/bluff restored, which the City Geologist concurs with. d) Granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the neighborhood within which the subject property is located is Residential, 2-4 DU/acre. The development of accessory structures and additions for single-family residences is consistent with this underlying land use designation. In addition, the improvements are consistent with the General Plan's goal to protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the community (Land Use Plan, Pag- 192-193). As concluded in Finding No.3 above, although the pool and other improvements do not comply with the Coastal Structure Setback,the improvements are not detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property and improvements in the area. Resolution No. 2009-93 Page 4 of 6 Additionally, the pool, spa, chimney, barbecue and trellis are farther away from the slope than other existing residences on the seaward side of the street. e) The proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan. The subject property is located within Subregion 4 of the City's coastal zone, as established by the Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan, and is designated for residential development. Subregion 4 is predominantly developed with single family residences, and is identified by a strong and unified character, adjacent land uses of different types, and active homeowners association, creating a homogeneity that establishes it as a distinct neighborhood. The after-the-fact accessory structures do not affect these characteristics. f) The subject property is located between the sea and the first public road (i.e., Sea Cove Drive). The public access policies of the Coastal Act (Chapter 3, Article 2) generally require the provision of public coastal access as a condition of new development. However,the subject property is a developed parcel within a developed neighborhood and does not contain any public trails from the street to the shoreline below or along the top of the bluff, nor could coastal access be obtained since the subject property and the adjacent properties are developed with single-family residences. Further, the site does not provide access because of the extreme slope that exists between the top and toe of the bluff, and as such, does not currently provide, nor will ever provide, public access to the sea. g) That the appeal offers no additional information to warrant overturning the Planning Commission's decision since it is based on issues related to the location of the Coastal Setback Line, Staffs position with previous applications, and geology. Further, the appeal does not directly refute any of the findings of fact made by the Planning Commission in granting the Variance and Coastal Permit; instead, it provides reactive comments to the comments made by some of the Commissioners during the Planning Commission's discussion that are based on the approved Planning Commission Minutes. Section 2: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. Section 3: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Reports to the Planning Commission dated December 11, 2008 and February 24, 2009, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2009-06, the Memorandum to the City Council dated June 2, 2009 and December 15, 2009, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's conditional approval of Case No. ZON2007-00046 and all the conditions of approval as stated in the attached Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference. Resolution No. 2009-93 Page 5 of 6 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of December 2009. air _■1 ayor ATTEST: 46eg_ led/ City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2009-93 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on December 15, 2009. Saa, CMP4A1,01_ City Clerk Resolution No. 2009-93 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval Case No. ZON2007-00046 (VAR & CP) 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this 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 approval shall become null and void after one year from the date of approval, unless approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the "plan check" review process. 3. The proposed project, including site layout, shall be constructed and maintained in substantial compliance with the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2009, as submitted by the owner. 4. The Approval of Case No. ZON2007-00046 (Variance and Coastal Permit) allows an after-the-fact pool, spa, and outdoor chimney barbecue in the Coastal Structure Setback Zone in the rear yard area of the subject property. 5. All the appropriate Building and Safety Division permits for the pool, spa, chimney, barbecue and trellis shall be obtained. Said permits shall not be issued until slope restoration of the blufftop is completed, as indicated in condition no. 9, below. 6. The maximum height of the chimney is limited to 12-feet, as measured from lowest adjacent grade to the top of the chimney. Only required spark arrestors are allowed to exceed the 12-foot height limit; however, other than the required spark arrestor, there shall not be any decorative/architectural features on the top of the chimney. Further, the spark arrestor shall not be any higher than the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code or the manufacturer's specifications, whichever is stricter. 7. The chimney and trellis shall maintain a 5-foot side yard setback from the eastern property line. A SETBACK CERTIFICATION SHALL BE PREPARED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR AND SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, INDICATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETBACK PRIOR TO A BUILDING PERMIT OR PLUMBING PERMIT FINAL FOR THE CHIMNEY/BARBECUE. 8. The mechanical equipment for the pool and spa shall maintain a minimum 3-foot setback from the side property lines if the manufacturers' specifications are provided to demonstrate that the equipment will not generate noise in excess of 65dBA at the property line. Otherwise, the mechanical equipment shall maintain a minimum 5-foot setback. 9. The retaining wall and related fill for the flat area and fire pit shall be removed, and the blufftop slope shall be restored to pre-grade conditions to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. All necessary permits and approvals from the Building and Safety Division needed to complete this removal and restoration must be obtained within 180-days of the final decision, and prior to removal of the retaining wall, fire pit and grading (fill). 10.A11 recommendations in the approved geology reports reviewed anti approved by the City Geologist shall be implemented. 11.The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 12.1n the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply. 13.The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays. Further, trucks 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. 14.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 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. Resolution No.2009-93 Exhibit A Page 2of2