PC RES 2006-009 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-09
RESOLUTION F THE PLANNING I 1 THE CITY OF
RANCHOPALOS VERDES DENYINGWITHOUT PREJUDICE CASE NO.
ZON2005-00569, A HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT AITPLAN
REVIEW FOR A 2,066 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY A ITI TO AN
EXISTING a T Y RESIDENCE LOCATED T 28455 CEDARBLUFF
DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2005, the applicant submitted Case No. ZON2005-
00569, a Height Variation application requesting construction of a 2,066 square foot two-
story addition to an existing 2,323 square foot one-story, single-family residence; and,
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2005, the project was deemed incomplete by Staff,
pending the submittal of additional information and construction of the required temporary
silhouette; and,
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2005, the applicant submitted a Site Plan Review
application; and,
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005, the project was deemed incomplete by Staff,
pending the construction of the required temporary silhouette; and,
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2006, after construction of the silhouette and submittal
of the silhouette certification form, the project was seemed complete for processing; 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 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement), Staff found no evidence that Case No. ZON2005-00569 would have a
significant effect on the environment and,therefore, the proposed project has been found to
be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Section 15301); 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 February 28, 2006, at which time all interested parties were given opportunities
to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HERESY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The second story addition will significantly impair the view from the
viewing area at 6758 Eddinghill Drive since the sixteen foot height limit is located well
below the horizon line, which continues to afford a view of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina
Island above the sixteen foot height limit. Thus, the proposed addition will be substantially
higher than the horizon line, thereby obstructing the additional view of the ocean and
Catalina Island above the sixteen foot height limit.
Section 2: The second story addition will significantly impair the view from the
viewing area at 6742 Eddinghill Drive since its orientation is in a westerly direction over the
subject property, and the addition will encroach into the view of the Pacific Ocean. Thus, it
is made more prominent since the orientation of this residence is towards the subject
property.
Section 3: If a similar second story addition were constructed on the parcel at
28511 Cedarbluff Drive, which is two parcels south of the subject property, there would be
significant cumulative view impairment for the properties at 6736 and 6742 Eddinghill Drive.
The proposed addition at the subject property would encroach into the view of the Pcaific
Oceam; while a similar addition at 28511 Cedarbluff Drive would encroach into the view of
the Pacific Ocean and above the horizon line, in the direction of the primary view. This is
made more prominent since the orientation of these residences (at 6736 and 6742
Eddinghill Drive) is towards the residence at 28511 Cedarbluff Drive.
Section 4: The proposed second story addition will not be compatible with the
immediate neighborhood character. The addition will result in a 4,389 square foot structure
size, which is 1,665 square feet larger than the average, and will result in the largest
residence in the immediate neighborhood by 699 square feet. Thus, the project is much
larger than the biggest structure and so much larger than the average structure size, and
results in significant view impairment and significant cumulative view impairment, which
cannot justify the project's compatibility with the immediate neighborhood.
Section 5: The proposed project will result in an unreasonable infringement of
privacy upon the adjacent property to the north. The development pattern of the
residences in the area is such that visibility onto yard areas of other properties does not
occur. However, the proposed second story addition includes a deck area at the rear of the
residence that will facilitate observation into the rear yard area of the adjacent property to
the north, thereby infringing upon the privacy of the rear yard area. It is the proposed
balcony along the rear fagade of the proposed second story that will allow direct visibility
into the rear yard area, which is not a situation that currently exists.
Section 6: The a site plan review application for the 186 square foot one story
addition is related to the height variation since it includes a deck. Since not all findings can
be made in a positive manner to warrant approval of the height variation, the Site Plan
Review application cannot be approved.
Section 7: For the foregoing reason 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 denies without prejudice Case No.
ZON2005-00569 for a Height Variation and Site Plan Review application for a 2,066 square
foot two-story addition to the existing one-story residence.
Section 8: 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
P.C. Resolution No. 2006-09
Page 2
Palo Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing and
with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than March 15, 2006.
PAS.�ED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of February 2006, by the following
vote:
AYES: Gerstner, Karp, Knight, Lewis, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Tetreault
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: None
-F I-a—
u)-fe-treault
Planning Commission Chairman
Joel0 AICP
Dire Planning, B ilding and
Cod vori f Sf oI
rcement; Secretary
to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2006-09
Page 3