CC RES 2006-070RESOLUTION NO. 2006-70
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE DIRECTOR'S CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF CASE NO. ZON2005- 00656, AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE
PLAN FOR A 1,288 SQUARE FOOT ONE -STORY ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING ONE -STORY RESIDENCE, RESULTING IN A 2,921 SQUARE
FOOT RESIDENCE MEASURING 15.65 — FEET IN OVERALL HEIGHT, AT
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5533 BAYRIDGE ROAD.
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2005, the applicant submitted Case No.
ZON2005- 00656, a Site Plan Review and a Grading Permit applications for a 1,288
square foot one -story addition to an existing one -story residence; and,
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2006, the project was deemed incomplete pending
submittal of additional information; and,
WHEREAS, upon submittal of the required information, the construction of the
temporary silhouette and submittal of the silhouette certification form, the case was
deemed complete by Staff on March 16, 2006; 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. ZON2005 -00656
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
project involves an addition to an existing residence; and,
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2006, the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement reviewed and approved Case No. ZON2005- 00656, and a Notice of
Decision was prepared and distributed to all interested parties; and,
WHEREAS, on May 30, 2006, within fifteen (15) days following the Director's
Notice of Decision, the appellant, Rollin Sturgeon, filed an appeal to the Planning
Commission requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's approval
of Case No. ZON2005- 00656; and,
WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on July 11, 2006 at which time all interested parties were given opportunities to
be heard and present evidence; 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 11, 2006, at which time the Planning Commission considered the
application and denied the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's approval of Case
No. ZON2005- 00656, and a Notice of Decision was prepared and distributed to all
interested parties; and,
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2006, within fifteen (15) days following the Planning
Commission's decision, the appellant, Rollin Sturgeon, filed an appeal to the City
Council requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial of
the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's conditional approval of Case No.
ZON20054- 00656, based upon his belief that the decision made by the Planning
Commission does not comply with the intent of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
September 5, 2006, 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 appellant's allegation that using the twenty closest homes
( "immediate neighborhood ") for conducting a Neighborhood Compatibility is
inappropriate and contradictory to Proposition M is found to be without merit as the
2003 -City Council- approved Neighborhood Compatibility Guidebook states that for the
purpose of Neighborhood Compatibility, the immediate neighborhood is normally
considered to be at least the twenty closest residences within the same zoning district.
The appellant's reference to Prop M is the City's View Preservation and Restoration
ordinance, which was approved by voter initiative in November 1989 and incorporated
into Section 17.02.040 of the City's Municipal Code. There is no definition-'"of an
"immediate neighborhood" in the City's ordinance nor is there any provision that
prevents the City Council from designating the twenty closest prope,rtie�s as the
immediate neighborhood, as it has done in the he
Compatibility Handbook.
The appellant's allegation that the applicant's proposed addition to the -front -of the
existing residence would result in an unbroken fagade that contributes to the apparent
bulk of the residence is found to be without merit as the applicant is proposing to add to
either side, not the front, of the existing residence. The proposed project will continue to
maintain a stepped fagade as seen from the street of access, which is an appearance
commonly found in the immediate neighborhood of the subject residence. The
appellant's allegation that the proposed project will be constructed up to the required
side yard setback area, resulting in a 10' clearance between the applicant's house and
the neighborhood house, which is incompatible with the existing 20' minimum setback
distance between houses is found to be without merit as the residences along Graylog
Street, north of the subject site, are situated further apart from each other than the
Resolution No. 2006 -70
Page 2 of 4
residences along Bayridge Road, which is where the subject site is situated.
Furthermore, the residences on the same side of the Bayridge Road as the subject site
(north side) are situated closer to each other than the residences along the opposite
side of the Bayridge Road. The Planning Commission determined that proposed side
yard setback distances for the project are comparable to the existing setback distances
of the adjoining residences. Lastly, on August 28, 2006, the appellant submitted
additional comments, which further explains he believes the proposed project is
incompatible with the neighborhood. The City Council hereby finds that the concerns
raised by the appellant were fully addressed by Staff in the May 11, 2006 staff report to
the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and the July 11, 2006 staff
report to the Planning Commission, and for those reasons, the City Council finds the
appellant's concerns to be without merit.
Section 2: The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's denial
of the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's conditional approval of Case No.
ZON2005- 00656, and finds as follows: As stated in the Staff Report to the Director
dated May 11, 2006; the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 11, 2006;
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -35; the Staff report that was prepared for
the City Council, and the evidence and testimony that was presented to the City
Council, all of which are incorporated herein by reference, the City Council hereby finds
that the addition and resulting appearance will not significantly change the appearance
of the immediate neighborhood and the residence will be compatible with the immediate
neighborhood. The architectural style, roofing material, exterior finishes, and building
materials will be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. Although the
resulting 2,921 square feet residence will be 861 square feet and 104 square feet
greater than the neighborhood average and the largest residence in the immediate
neighborhood, respectively, the proposed size is not a substantial deviation from the
neighborhood range. Further, the proposed addition to the sides of the property, instead
of to the front of the existing property, mitigates the potential concern for creating bulk
and mass. Lastly, the, building setbacks from the corresponding property lines are
found to be comparable with the residences found in the immediate neighborhood. As
such, the City Council hereby finds that the 1,288 square foot one -story addition to an
existing single- family residence has been designed in a manner in which the proposed
scale, architectural style and building materials, and the front, side, and rear yard
setbacks blends in with the existing immediate neighborhood, thereby achieving
Neighborhood Compatibility.
Section 3: For the foregoing reason and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report to the Director dated May 11, 2006; the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission dated July 11, 2006; Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-
35; the Staff Report prepared for the City Council, and the evidence and testimony that
was presented to the City Council in connection with this application, the City Council of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal, thereby upholding the
Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Director's conditional approval of the
Case No. ZON2005 -00656 for a Site Plan Review application for the construction of a
Resolution No. 2006 -70
Page 3 of 4
1,288 square foot one -story addition to an existing one -story residence, with- an overall
height of 15.65.
Section 4: The time within which 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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5t" day of September 2006.
Attest:
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carolynn Petru, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2006 -70 as duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting held on September 5, 2006.
Clerk
Resolution No. 2006 -70
Page 4of4