PC RES 1990-010 RESOLUTION NO. 90- 10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE
APPEAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 632 THEREBY
APPROVING THE PROJECT AT 6418 RIO LINDA.
WHEREAS , the Director of Environmental Services approved
Height Variation No. 632 for a two story addition at 6418 Rio
Linda on December 6, 1989.
WHEREAS , on December 19, 1989 , Uichin and Koobong Ho filed an
appeal of the Director' s decision to the Planning Commission
within 15 days of the decision of the Director of Environmental
Services ; and
WHEREAS, on November 17 , 1989, through Proposition M,
an amended Section 17 .02.040 of the Development Code became
effective .
WHEREAS , on December 5 , 1989, the City Council implemented
Resolution No. 89-113 , with respect to Height Variation
applications filed before Proposition M's effective date of
November 17 , 1989 ; and
WHEREAS , the application was one of the four remaining pre-
Proposition M projects that was subject to timely appeal ; and
WHEREAS , the applicant substantially complied with each
material term of Proposition M; and
WHEREAS , after notice pursuant to the City 's Development
Code , the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February
27, 1990 , at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence .
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCH
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS :
Section 1 : That the applicant has complied with provisions
set forth in Resolution No. 89-113 for early neighbor
consultation, in that written notice of the application was mailed
to the 58 residences within a 500 foot radius of the site on
January 26, 1990, with one of the notices being returned, and that
there is no Homeowners Association for this portion of the City.
Section 2 : That the applicant constructed a temporary space
frame of the outline of the proposed addition on January 26 , 1990 ,
the height and location of which were verified by Staff on
February 7 , 1990 and a photographic analysis was performed by
Staff on February 19, 1990 .
Section 3: That the structure does not significantly impair a
view or vista from public property (parks, major thoroughfare,
bikeway, walkway, equestrian trial etc.) which has been identified
in the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan or City -approved
viewing area, since there are no public property or trails upslope
from the subject property.
Section 4: That the proposed structure is not located on a
ridge or promontory.
Section 5: That the proposed structure is designed and
situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction since
the addition has been reduced in height from 25 feet to 22 feet
and would extend only over the garage and a portion of the kitchen
leaving the west portion of the residence as a single story
structure. As a condition of approval, the landowner must sign a
Covenant agreement to maintain the vegetation to protect views.
Section 6: That there is no significant cumulative impact
caused by granting the application since the proposed project and
any future additions, would be required to have ridge heights
designed below the line of the distant view, to minimize
cumulative view impact.
Section 7: That any view impairment for the portion of the
proposed addition over 16 feet high does not significantly impair
the view from a viewing area of any of the properties in the area
which were identified as having a view as set forth in the City's
Development Code. The proposed ridgeline of the residence would
appear below the line of the existing development would not
significantly intrude into the distant view of the ocean, Malibu
Coast, or Channel islands.
Section 8: That based upon an analysis set forth in the
accompanying staff reports, the proposed structure, when
considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly
impair the view from the principle viewing area from 6350 and 6344
Villa Rosa Drive.
Section 9: That the proposed addition complies with all other
Code requirements.
Section 10: That based upon windshield survey of the
vicinity, and a sampling of the building permits on file at City
Hall, the proposed structure is compatible with the character of
the immediate neighborhood. The architectural style and building
materials are consistent with existing structures. The proposed
two story residence conforms with the required front yard setback
and is similar in scale and square footage to other dwellings in
the vicinity.
Resolution No. 90- 10
Page 2
Sec
the f ind
reports,
Verdes h
thereby
decision
subject
•
tion 11: For the foregoing
Ings and analysis set forth
the Planning Commission of
ereby denies the appeal of
sustaining the Director of
to approve the second stor
to the conditions contained
,A4116 B e n a r d-'
Director of Environmental Services
and Secretary to the Commission
i
reasons and based further upon
in the accompanying staff
the City of Rancho Palos
Height Variation No. 632,
Environmental Services'
y addition to the residence
in Exhibit "A"% 7
Ro}ftrt Mcbit
C airman
Resolution No. 90- 10
Page 3
EXHIBIT "A"
Height Variation No. 632 -Appeal
6418 Rio Linda
1. A City Landscape Covenant to maintain property to protect
views shall be submitted to be recorded prior to issuance of
Building Permits.
2. A Second Unit Covenant to prohibit the addition form being
rented or used as a separate dwelling unit shall be submitted
to be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. Maximum ridge height shall be certified not to exceed 22
feet, including roofing materials.
4. Chimney height shall be limited to the minimum required by
the Building Code. Any increase in the number a height of
chimneys on the addition shall require the review and
approval of the Director of Environmental Services.
5. The windows on the south elevation shall be a minimum of 6
feet above the finished floor level of the second story
addition to preserve the privacy of the upslope neighbors.
6. A final re -stamp is required prior to issuance of building
permits to allow staff to assure compliance with all planning
conditions and code provisions.
Resolution No. 90-10
Page 4