CC RES 1995-022RESOLUTION NO. 95 - 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF
HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 800, THEREBY APPROVING A
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF
26'- 0" AT 5303 BAYRIDGE ROAD
WHEREAS, on May 17, 1994, the applicant, Mr. Pritam Matharu,
submitted an application for Height Variation No. 800 to the
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for a 2,,128
square foot second story addition to a maximum height of 261- 011,
as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.04 0 (B) (1) (c ) of the
Development Code. At the same time, the applicant submitted an
application for Site Plan Review No. 7469 for a 1,005 square foot
first story addition. The Site Plan Review application is a
ministerial permit, which is separate from the Height Variation
application and is not part of the subject appeal; 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 65952.5 (e) (Hazardous
Waste and Substances Statement), there was no substantial evidence
that Height Variation No. 800 - Appeal would have any effect on the
environment. Accordingly, the proposed project has been found to
be categorically exempt (Class III); and,
WHEREAS, on September 22, 1994, the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement approved Height Variation No, 800 and
Site Plan Review No. 7469, subject to conditions of approval; and,
WHEREAS, on September 29, 1994, Mr.. Michael McNamara filed a
written appeal of Height Variation No. 800 to the Planning
Commission, which was submitted within the fifteen (15 ) day appeal
period following the Director's decision; and,
WHEREAS, on November 9, 1994, after due notice issued
pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeal,
at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to
be heard and present evidence, and adopted P . C . Resolution No. 94-
53, denying the appeal and approving the project; and,
WHEREAS, on November 281 1994, Mr. Rollin Sturgeon, filed a
written appeal of Height Variation No, 800 to the City Council,
which was within the fifteen (15) day appeal period following the
Planning Commission's decision (which had been extended due to the
Thanksgiving Day holiday); and,
WHEREAS, on January 17, 1995, after due notice issued
pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal, 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: That pursuant to Section 17.02.04 0 (C) (1) (d) (i) of
the Development Code and the adopted Height Variation Guidelines,
the applicant has complied with the provisions requiring early
neighborhood consultation, in that they discussed the proposed
project and obtained the signatures of 40% of the property owners
within a 500 foot radius of the subject property and 70% of the
property owners' signatures within a 100' radius of the subject
property.
Section 2: That the applicant erected a temporary silhouette
framework to represent the outline of the proposed addition; the
height and location of which was verified by Staff.
Section 3: That the structure does not significantly impair
a view or vista from public property (parks, major thoroughfare,
bikeway, walkway, equestrian trail) which has been identified in
the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan or City approved
viewing area, since Bayridge Road and the surrounding area are not
identified in the General Plan, or any other official City
document, as part of a view corridor and the property is not
located in the City's Coastal Zone.
Section 4: That the proposed structure is not located on a
ridge or promontory, since the subject property is located at the
end of a cul -de -sac on the lowest of several graded terraces, which
were created to accommodate the subdivision in which the lot is
located. As such, the rear portion of the lot can only be seen
from a few properties on Silver Spur Road, Rolling Ridge Road and
Rollingwood Drive, and does not create the same visual impact that
may be of concern for a property located on a ridge or promontory.
Section 5: That the portion of the proposed structure over 16
feet in height, when considered exclusive of foliage, does not
significantly impair a view from the viewing areas of the
residential properties located on Silver Spur Road, Birchf field
Road, Elmbank Road and Rollingwood Drive since either the primary
view from those properties is focused in a different direction than
the location of the subject property or the pad elevation of the
lot is substantially higher than the subject property, thereby
allowing the view to continue to be available above the ridgeline
of the proposed second story addition.
Resolution No. 95 - 22
Page 2 of 6
Section 6: That the structure is designed and situated in such
a manner as to minimize impairment of views since the proposed
addition would be concentrated over the existing footprint of the
building and therefore would not encroach into the view corridor
down the adjacent canyon which is available to properties across
the street on Bayridge Road and upslope on Elmbank Road.
Section 7: That no significant cumulative view impairment
would be caused by granting the application since the majority of
the residences on Silver Spur Road, Birchf field Road, Elmbank Road,
and Rollingwood Drive, which are upslope from and overlook the
subject property, are located at a substantially higher elevation
than the subject property such that similar second story additions
on Bayridge Road would not result in significant cumulative view
impairment from these properties. .
Section 8: That the proposed addition would comply with the
minimum setback requirements for the RS -5 zoning district and is
consistent with the front yard setbacks of the other single family
residences in the immediate neighborhood. In addition, the
proposed addition complies with all other applicable standards of
the Development Code.
Section 9: That, although the footprint of the residence
would be increased in size, the proposed project would not create
a significant reduction to the amount of open space on the lot and
the amount of remaining open space would be greater than that found
throughout the existing neighborhood (an average of 79%), since the
new open space would be 82% and the Development Code requires a
minimum provision of 47.5% open space. Since the amount of open
space remaining on the subject property is greater than other lots
in the immediate neighborhood and other areas in the RS -5 zoning
district, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan
Policy No. 17 (page 78) , which encourages preservation of the rural
and open character of the City.
Section 10: That, although the structure would be larger in
square footage and scale than many of the other existing residences
in the neighborhood, the proposed project would not be incompatible
with the surrounding neighborhood since the residence would be
located on a lot which is substantially larger (21,800 square feet
in size) than the other lots in the surrounding area (which average
9,700 square feet in size) . Neither the General Plan nor
Proposition M preclude the expansion of existing single family
residences. In fact, numerous single family residences throughout
the City, as well as in this particular neighborhood, have been
y
enlarged in recent years. In addition, the second story portion of
g
the addition would be setback substantially from the front property
line (50 feet), and the single story indirect access garage would
provide building articulation from the lower facade. The indirect
Resolution No. 95 - 22
Page 3 of 6
access garage configuration is consistent with other homes in the
immediate neighborhood. All of these factors would reduce the
apparent bulk and mass of the structure, as viewed from the street
and adjacent properties.
Section 11: That, although most of the existing residences in
the neighborhood are single story structures, there are several
examples of two story residences in the immediate neighborhood.
Accordingly, the City Council finds that the proposed project would
not be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood character
simply because it would be a two story structure and would have
more square footage than other homes in the neighborhood* The City
Council finds that the proposed project would be compatible with
the other existing residences in the neighborhood, since the
exterior materials, facade treatments, building articulation and
variety of roof planes, window treatments and architectural
projections would result in a structure that does not appear bulky
or massive when viewed from the public right -of -way or from
adjacent properties.
Section 12: That the proposed project is consistent with the
goals and policies of the General Plan, since Policy No. 1 (page
78 ) encourages the maintenance of a variety of housing types in the
City, which suggests that compatibility does not require all
residential structures to be identical, and does not preclude
second story additions, such as the proposed project, where there
is no significant impact to views and the home maintains the same
general proportion to the size of the lot. Policy No. 3 (page 7 8 )
encourages the maintenance and improvement of all existing
residential neighborhoods, so as to maintain optimum local
standards of housing quality and design. The proposed project
would help to further this, goal since the addition would constitute
a substantial improvement to the existing residence and would
generally improve property values in the area. Policy No. 11 (page
11) of the General Plan states that there shall be no alteration of
the natural terrain, The proposed project would further this goal
since the proposed project would be constructed on the existing
level pad area and would not require any grading or residential
construction to occur within the sloping rear yard area of the
property. The proposed project is not subject to the requirements
of the Coastal Specific Plan since the property is not located in
the City's Coastal Zone.
Section 13: 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.
Resolution No. 95 - 22
Page 4 of 6
Section 14: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the
information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes,
records of the proceeding and any evidence presented at the public
hearing, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby
denies the Appeal of Height Variation No. 800, thereby upholding
the Planning Commission's approval of Height Variation No. 800 for
a second story addition at 5303 Bayridge Road, subject to the
conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A ", which
are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21 day of February, 1995.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK (DEPUTY)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES }
I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 95 - 22 was duly and
regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular
meeting held on February 21, 1995,
CITY CLERK (DEPUTY)
Resolution No. 95 - 22
Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval
for Height Variation No. 800 - Appeal
5303 Bayridge Road
11 The second story addition shall not exceed a maximum of
twenty six feet (261-011) in height, as measured from the
highest point of existing grade covered by the structure
(elevation 102.751) to the highest ridgeline of,'the
structure (elevation 128.751). THE RIDGE HEIGHT IS CRITICAL
AND SHALL REQUIRE CERTIFICATION.
2. A minimum of 82% open space shall be maintained on the lot.
3. The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained:
front: 201- 011, rear: 15'- 011, interior sides: 5' -0"
4. The roof eaves shall not project into any required setback
area more than 4" per each one foot of required setback.
5. The windows located on the west elevation of the home (i.e.
upper level bathroom and master bedroom) shall be
constructed of an opaque material.
6. The property owner shall submit a notarized Covenant to
Protect Views to the Department of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement, prior to submittal of plans to the
Building and Safety Division for plan check.
7. The completed project shall substantially conform to the
plans stamped as received by the Planning Division on May
17, 19949
8. In the event that a Planning Division requirement and a
Building and Safety Division requirement are in conflict
with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.
99 The construction site shall be kept free of all loose
materials resembling trash 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 salvaged materials,
abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other
household fixtures.
(DSK #14 [KKI HV800CC. RES)
Resolution No. 95 - 22
Page 6 of 6