PC RES 1995-028P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 95-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING
VARIANCE NO. 395, THEREBY APPROVING THE
REQUESTED 14 FOOT (MAXIMUM) EXPANSION OF AN
EXISTING DECK TO BE CONSTRUCTED OVER AN
EXTREME SLOPE AT 5345 BAYRIDGE ROAD
WHEREAS, on May 24, 1995, Mr and Mrs Thomas Chan, submitted an application for
Variance No 395, a request to allow a 14 foot expansion of an existing deck to be constructed over
an extreme slope, and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code Sections 2100 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 65952 5(e) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that
Variance No 395 would have a significant effect on the environment Accordingly, the proposed
project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class I), and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 11, 1995,
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 RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS
Section 1: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply
generally to other property in the same zoning district in that, the habitable portion of the subject
residence is situated a significant distance (42 feet at its greatest dimension) from the front property
line Additionally, the severely sloping portion of the apphcant's rear yard limits the further enjoyment
of the subject property for recreational purposes Thus, the combination of the significant house
setback and the extreme slope at qualifies as an exceptional circumstance which As such, there is
limited usable (level) rear yard area behind the house.
Section 2: That such a Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant since, the property right in question is the applicant's ability
to further develop and enjoy any further recreational uses on the subject property This type of use
is typically enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district which, without the granting
of the Variance, would not be available on the subject property
Section 3: That the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located, since
no portion of the deck projection would significantly impair the views of, or from any neighboring
properties
Section 4: That the granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the policies and
objectives of the General Plan since the General Plan promotes improvements to properties
throughout the City that will enhance the character of the area without causing any adverse impacts
to the given area. The proposed project would be consistent with this objective
Section 5: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094 b of the California Code of Civil
Procedure
Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in
the Staff Report, Minutes, and all other records of the proceedings, the Planning Commission hereby
grants Variance No. 395, thereby approving the construction of a 14 foot expansion of an existing
deck to occur over an extreme slope, subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
made a part hereof, which are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare in
the area
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of July 1995, by the following vote
AYES Commissioners Alberio, Ferraro, Wang, Whiteneck, and Vice -Chair
Hayes
NOES NONE
ABSTENTIONS- NONE
PBSENCE_S . Commissioner Vannorsdal l/ nd Cha
/�_4 l
Bret B Fiernardl. AICP
Directo/of Plinning, B#ding, and
Code Enforcement, and, Secretary to
the Planning Commission
Mowlds
P.C. Resolution No 95-28
Page 2 of 4
•
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR VARIANCE NO 395
(5345 Bayridge Road)
•
1) The maximum projection of the deck expansion over the extreme slope shall not
exceed 14 feet.
2) The maximum height of the deck expansion shall not exceed 12 feet as measured
from the top of the lowest foundation member to the top of the safety railing,
3) The deck expansion shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the approved
set of plans stamped as received by the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
Department on May 24, 1995
4) In the event that a Planning requirement and Building and Safety requirement are in
conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply
5) The construction site shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and
debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes Such
excess material may include, but is not limited to the accumulation of debris,
garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials,
abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
6) No grading has been approved with this Permit.
7) The applicant shall provide vegetative screening adjacent to the exposed foundation
members of the deck expansion. A landscape plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to the
issuance of Building Permit.
8) A completed and notarized Covenant to Protect Views shall be submitted to the
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department prior to the submittal of the
approved plans into the Building and Safety Division's Plan Check process.
9) The color of the deck expansion shall be reviewed by the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement in order to ensure that the deck will blend into the
existing slope
PC Resolution No 95-28
Page 3 of 4
•
•
10) All lighting shall be at deck (foot) level (not on railing), low intensity, and installed
such that no illurmnation of adjacent properties shall occur The Director of
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement shall review any proposed lighting to
ensure that this condition is adhered to
PC Resolution No 95-28
Page 4 of 4