PC RES 1997-026P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 97-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING HEIGHT
VARIATION NO. 832, THEREBY APPROVING A 800
SQUARE -FOOT, 2 -STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A PAD
LOT, WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 25'6", LOCATED AT
29615 STONECREST ROAD
WHEREAS, on January 20, 1997, the applicants, Mr & Mrs Chi K Leung, submitted
an application for Height Variation No 832 to allow a 2 -story addition to their existing 2 -
story, single-family residence located at Stonecrest Road, 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 Regulation, 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 Height Variation No. 832 would have a significant
effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be
categorically exempt (Class 1, Section 15301(e)(1)), and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on May 13, 1997, 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: The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation
process established by the City by obtaining acknowledgement signatures from seventy-
nine percent (79%) of the property owners within a 500 foot radius and one hundred
percent (100%) of the property owners within a 100 -foot radius of the subject property
Section 2: The structure does not significantly impair a view from public property
which has been identified in the City's General plan or Coastal Specific Plan as City -
designated viewing areas because there are no City -designated public viewing areas
within this section of the City along Stonecrest Road; and the subject property is not
located within the Coastal Specific Plan area
Section 3: The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory because
it is located on a pad lot within an established housing tract which does not contain any
canyons and is not situated along the coastal bluffs
Section 4: The proposed second -story addition, when considered exclusive of
forage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel,
because there are no protected views from a viewing area of an adjacent residence over
the subject property
Section 5: There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting
the application because there are no individual protected views impaired by the proposed
second -story addition
Section 6: The structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize
impairment of a view because there is no view to be impaired by the proposed second -
story addition.
Section 7: The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements
because all minimum building setbacks and open space will be maintained
Section 8: The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood
character because the architectural style will match the surrounding neighborhood, the
total project bulk and mass, although larger than the surrounding residences, will be
designed with a roof pitch that visually blends the addition to the existing second -story, the
proposed structure will maintain the existing 30 foot front yard setback, which is similar to
the front yard setbacks for the adjacent residences, and the scale of the proposed addition
is compatible to other large second -story residences within the Mesa Palos Verdes
Homeowners Association
Section 9: The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement
of privacy of the occupants of abutting residences because the proposed project will be
conditioned to install translucent windows on the north side of the second -story addition
that will protect the privacy of the adjacent residence at 5806 Scotwood Drive and will be
setback sufficiently to protect the privacy of the residence at 5814 Scotwood Drive
Section 10: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council Pursuant to Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(j) of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in
writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following May
13, 1997, the date of the Planning Commission's final action.
Section 11: For the foregoing reasons 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 approves Height Variation
No 832, thereby approving a 800 square -foot, 2 -story addition to an existing 2 -story
single-family residence on a pad lot, with a maximum building height of 25 50' measured
P C. Resolution No 97-26
Page 2 of 5
from the existing high elevation point of 98 69, located at 29615 Stonecrest Road, subject
to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, which
are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the area
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May 1997, by the following vote -
AYES. Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Clark, Ng, Slayden,
Vice Chairman Whiteneck, and Chairman Vannorsdall.
ABSTENTIONS
Carolynn PeWu
Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement; and, Secretary
to the Planning Commission
60a',"So r--qniem�
Donald E. Vannorsdall
Chairman
PC Resolution No 97- 2 6
Page 3 of 5
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 832
(29615 STONECREST ROAD)
1. This approval is for a 800 square -foot, 2 -story addition to be constructed at 29615
Stonecrest Road The maximum height of the addition shall be 25 50' including the
roofing materials. The maximum ridgeline elevation of the addition shall be 124.10'
as measured from a reference elevation of 98 60' at the northeast corner of the
existing residence
2 The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department certification that the
maximum ridge height does not exceed 124 10'
3. No increase to the existing building footprint is approved as part of this Height
Variation approval Therefore the following minimum setbacks shall be maintained
Front yard setback 20'
Rear yard setback: 15'
Side yard setback. 5'
4 No grading is approved as part of this Height Variation approval
5. A minimum of 50% open space shall be maintained on the property.
6. The maximum eave projection allowed into the required setback areas shall not
exceed 4 inches for each 1 foot of required setback.
7 The bathroom and closet windows proposed as part of the second -story addition,
located on the north side of the structure, shall incorporate and maintain translucent
materials to protect the privacy of the adjacent property located at 5806 Scotwood
Drive
8. In the event that a Planning requirement and Building & Safety requirement are in
conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply
9 Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the revised plans submitted to the City
on February 25, 1997
P C Resolution No 97-26
Page 4 of 5
10 The hours of construction shall be limited to 7 00 AM to 7 00 PM, Monday through
Saturday No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays
11. 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
12 There is no existing foliage on the subject property that impairs views from any
nearby residences Therefore, none of the vegetation on the subject lot needs to
be trimmed or removed prior to Building Permit issuance However, this
determination does not preclude or prevent a property owner from filing for view
restoration permit against the subject property at a future date
N \GROUP\PLANNING\DWARD\HV\HV832\HV832 RES
P C Resolution No 97-26
Page 5 of 5