Loading...
CC RES 1989-087Resolution No. 89 -87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 574 THEREBY SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT AT 4189 LORRAINE ROAD. WHEREAS, on February 16, 1989, the Director of Environmental Services denied a Height Variation No. 574 for a second story addition located at 4189 Lorraine; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 1989, the applicants Daniel and Mi.lita Moine filed an appeal with the Planning Commission within 15 days of the decision of the Director of Environmental Services; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 1989, the Planning Commission upheld the appeal thereby approving the second story addition; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 1989, James Holly, the property owner at 6512 Nancy Road, filed an appeal with the City Council within 15 days of the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on July 18, and August 15, 1989, the City Council heard the appeal at which time 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: Procedural Background, Facts, and Contested .Issues. A. This appeal arises out of a height variation application filed pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.048 for a proposed second story addition to a residential structure at 4109 Lorraine Road. The total height of the proposed structure will not exceed 23 feet, 6 inches. B. The City Council has conducted a public hearing de novo, considered the evidence, conducted site visits, and argument presented to it by staff, the parties and their legal counsel, and the interested public. The Council has also considered the evidence presented in the record of the Director of Environmental Services and Planning Commission decisions, including photographic view surveys prepared by staff before and during the Council hearing. This decision is based upon the Council's independent weighing and balancing of the evidence, including conflicting testimony. Specific references to evidence in the record are intended to provide examples of the materials upon which the Council has based its decision, but any such reference is not intended to exclude as a partial basis for this decision any other supporting evidence in the record. The Council further notes that legal counsel for the parties have not raised any objections to procedural matters, but have limited their arguments to the conflicting testimony and other evidence in the record. C. Appellants initially sought protection for views from an area adjacent to a swimming pool located on the lowest portion of their property at 6512 Nancy Road. Based upon testimony from the parties and staff, on July 18, 1989, the Council stated its preliminary conclusion that the pool area was not an appropriate viewing area within the meaning of section 17.02.040 C-1., and that the view from the pool area was not the primary view from the property within the meaning of section 17.02-040 B.10c* The pool area is too far removed from the principal structure, appellants' residence, to have a sufficient functional relationship with the residence to warrant view protection. The Council has specifically considered appellants' evidence that their use of the pool area for entertainment warrants view protection, and finds that testimony unpersuasive in light of the physical situation on the lot. Moreover, the Council notes that appellants, upon being advised of the July 18 preliminary conclusion in this regard, changed their position to seek re-analysis of views from both seated and standing positions within their principal residential structure. This re-analysis was undertaken and completed by staff. Based upon the foregoing specific facts and consideration of the whole record, the Council finds and concludes that appellants failed to demonstrate that the pool area constitutes a viewing area or that primary views are taken from the pool area. Do on July 18, 1989, the Council also heard objections from Mary Farrington based upon potential view blockage from her home at 6516 Nancy Road and an adjacent vacant lot. Ms. Farrington had previously failed to object or otherwise participate in the proceedings. Moreover, Ms. Farrington's testimony indicated that she was unsure whether the proposed height variation would result in any view blockage from her properties. The staff reports presented to Council indicated that a view analysis had been completed for the Farrington properties, and that no significant view impairment would result from the proposal. However, based upon Ms. Farrington's testimony, her apparent confusion about the process and impaired memory, and the lack of any objection from the parties, the Council directed staff to re-analyze the view potentials from her properties. The re-analysis was conducted and presented by staff at the August 15, 1989 Council meeting. Based upon photographic evidence presented to Council, staff's testimony about their personal observation of views from the Farrington property and Council's independent site visits, the Council finds that the minimal one-foot blockage of the bottom portion of Ms. Farrington's harbor and ocean view, from a seated position, from her home does not constitute a significant view impairment, directly or cumulatively, E. The Council has considered the re-analysis of views from appellants' property, and the related evidence. The Council has Resolution No. 89-87 Page 2 found that the topography of appellant's lot is unusual in that the property is tri-level with the residence developed on the highest level and a yard area and pool developed on the lower two levels, respectively. The Council finds appellants viewing area to be located within the primary living area of the residential structure and immediately adjacent to it, which is located on the upper level of the property. The Council finds no evidence that there will be any significant view impairment, either directly or cumulatively, from these areas. While staff did identify a potential for view improvement from downslope locations removed from the residential structure, provided certain vegetation on appellants' property and surrounding lots were removed, the Council finds that these locations are not close enough to the residential structure to constitute viewing areas under the code. The vast majority of appellant's daily activities are conducted within the primary living area of the residential structure and immediately adjacent to it, and from these areas there is no significant view obstruction or impairment. Notwithstanding these findings, the Council has conditioned the height variation pro- posal to require the removal of certain vegetation from 4109 Lorraine Road so as to provide an enhanced view corridor for appellants, based upon the Council's authority under section 17*029040 B.1.b. and f. to take actions to minimize view obstruc- tion, whether significant or not, and to prevent significant cumulative impacts. Moreover, the Council notes that the height variation applicant did not object to the imposition of any condition of approval recommended by staff, including the aforementioned view enhancement measures. Section 29. That the proposed structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction from the primary viewing area of adjacent properties, including the afore- mentioned properties. The Council finds, based upon the appli- cant's testimony, that revisions to the design of the proposed second story addition would not be appropriate because while not resulting in significant improvement of views, such revisions would seriously diminish the desirability, feasibility,-and aesthetic value of the project. The Council notes further that the proposed addition was shown to be generally compatible. with the scale and style of structures in the neighborhood. Section 3.* For the reasons detailed above, the portion of the proposed addition over sixteen feet high does not significant- ly impair the primary view from the properties at 6512 and 6516 Nancy Road or from any properties identified as having a view. Section 4: Based upon the elevation surveys prepared by B.L.C. Surveying, Inc. and submitted by applicant, and no evidence having been presented to show otherwise, the Council finds that the proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. Section 5.- No evidence having been presented to show otherwise, the Council finds that the structure does not significantly impair a view or vista from public property Resolution No. 89-87 Page 3 including, but not limited to, parks, major thoroughfares, bikeways, walkways, and equestrian trails which have been identified in the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, or City-approved viewing areas. Section 6: That there is not significant cumulative impact caused by granting the application since the neighborhood is predominantly two story or split-level residences. The applicant's residence is one of a few residences in the neighborhood which is single story. In making this finding, based upon the testimony and staff view analyses, the Council has considered the minimal amount of view interference caused by the proposed structure for the properties at 6512 and 6516 Nancy Road, and properties in near proximity to the applicant's property. Section 7: The Council finds that the proposed height variation is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act because it is a minor modification to a single family residence exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Section 8.* That after consideration of the appeal of Height Variation No. 574 on August 15, 1989, the City Council directed staff to bring back a resolution containing proposed . findings to deny the appeal and, based upon this resolution, denies the appeal and approves the second story addition at 4109 Lorraine Road subject to conditions in Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on September 5, 1989. IL6 LCA Mayor ATTEST, 9 City Clerk Vate of California County of Los Angeles ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes Ir JO PURCELLF City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos hereby certify that the above Resolution No..89-87 was duly regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a meeting thereof held on September 5, 1989. 1-100�, Verdes, and regular Resolution No. 89-87 Page 4 EXHIBIT "All HEIGHT VARIATION NOw 574 APPEAL 4109 LORRAINE ROAD i's A landscape covenant running with the land shall be submitted and recorded with the County of Los Angeles prior to the issuance of building permits. 2* The following trees on the property shall be removed prior to building permit final to enhance a view corridor from 6512 Nancy Road: The Brazilian Pepper Tree located in the rear yard at the northeast corner of the property; and Pine Tree within the front yard parallel to the south property line. The Coral Tree shall be trimmed to a height not to exceed the ridgeline. 3,9 The maximum height of the project, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, shall not exceed 23' 6". 4* This approval shall expire within 180 days unless the landowner submits complete plans into building plan check or an extension is given from the Planning Commission. Resolution No. 89-87 Page 5