PC RES 1998-024i
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 98-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 202, SITE PLAN REVIEW
NO. 8252 AND MISCELLANEOUS REVISIONS TO
PREVIOUS CITY APPROVALS FOR EXISTING
STRUCTURES, ADDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN
EXISTING, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT
6470 SEACOVE DRIVE
WHEREAS, on September 28, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No 93-27, conditionally approving Variance No 358, Conditional Use Permit
No. 71 -Revision 'D', Grading Permit No. 1440 -Revision and Coastal Permit No 117 for
after -the -fact approval for the installation of irrigation, concrete walkways and a fountain
located seaward of the coastal setback line, modifications to the approved tract fencing,
installation of landscaping which exceeded the ridgeline of the house, and minor grading
and garden walls located seaward of the coastal setback line of the property at 6470
Seacove Drive; this action included conditions of approval requiring all but four (4) of the
existing queen palms (Syagrus romanzoffianum) to be removed, most of the existing
concrete walkways to be removed, and requiring the rear- and side -yard fencing to be
modified to comply with the approved tract fencing for Tract No 39672; but the additional
modifications necessary to comply with these conditions were not completed by the
property owner, and,
WHEREAS, on March 3, 1994, the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement conditionally approved Grading Permit No 1717 for sixty cubic yards (60 yd')
of grading for a 400 -square -foot game room under the existing house at 6470 Seacove
Drive; this action included conditions of approval requiring existing Municipal Code
violations on the property to be corrected prior to building permit issuance, including the
various items addressed by P C Resolution No. 93-27 (discussed above), the placement
of tree guards in the public right-of-way of Seacove Drive, the front yard fountain
addressed by P.C. Resolution No 94-57 (discussed below), and light fixtures on the
pilasters along the front -yard property -line fence; but the additional modifications
necessary to comply with these conditions were not completed by the property owner, and,
WHEREAS, on June 8, 1994, the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement conditionally approved Site Plan Review No 7480 for after -the -fact approval
of retractable awnings and shades on the sides and rear of the house at 6470 Seacove
Dave, this action included conditions of approval requiring modifications to the projection
of certain awnings into the side -yard setback areas, but Site Plan Review No 7480 expired
on December 8, 1994, because a building permit was not obtained for the awnings and
shades by the property owner, and,
WHEREAS, on December 13, 1994, the Planning Commission adopted P.0
Resolution No. 94-57, conditionally approving Variance No. 378 for after -the -fact approval
for an existing fountain in excess of forty-two inches (42") in height in the front -yard
setback area, tabling the portion of Variance No. 378 regarding after -the -fact approval of
an existing outdoor bar and barbecue in the easterly side -yard setback area, and denying
the portion of Variance No 378 regarding after -the -fact approval of an existing,
freestanding light fixture located seaward of the coastal structure setback line of the
property at 6470 Seacove Drive; this action included conditions of approval requiring the
outdoor bar and barbecue to be removed if an anticipated Development Code amendment
was not adopted, a site plan review application for the outdoor bar and barbecue to be
submitted within sixty (60) days if the anticipated Development Code amendment was
adopted, and the freestanding light fixture to be removed and relocated out of the coastal
structure setback area, but the additional modifications and approvals necessary to
comply with these conditions were not completed by the property owner, and,
WHEREAS, in 1995, the owner of the property at 6470 Seacove Drive, Dr Robert
Hunt, filed suit against the City in an effort to overturn certain City decisions (including
some of those described above) with regard to the various uses and structures on the
property, and the City subsequently filed a cross-complaint against Dr Hunt in an effort
to compel him to comply with these previous decisions, and,
WHEREAS, the court found in the City's favor regarding all of its previous
decisions, with the exception of the fountain in the front -yard setback area which the City
was ordered to allow to remain as constructed and without modifications, and,
WHEREAS, on April 14, 1998, Dr Hunt, submitted applications for Conditional Use
Permit No 202, Site Plan Review No. 8252, landscape plan review and revisions to the
previous City approvals for Conditional Use Permit No 71 -Revision 'D', Variance No. 358,
Variance No 378, Coastal Permit No. 117, Grading Permit No 1440 and Grading Permit
No. 1717 (hereafter Conditional Use Permit No 202, et al), in compliance with the
requirements of the court's decision, and,
WHEREAS, on May 15, 1998, the applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 202,
et al. were deemed complete by Staff, 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 Conditional Use Permit No 202, et al would have
a significant effect on the environment because the various modifications and approvals
are related to minor, accessory uses and structures on the site of an existing, single-family
P C Resolution No. 98-24
Page 2of11
residence and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt
(Classes 1 and 3, Sections 15301(e) and 15303(e)); 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 June 9, 1998, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard
and present evidence
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE
AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS.
Section 1: Revisions to Condition 7 of P.C. Resolution No 93-27 approving
Variance No. 358 and Coastal Permit No 117 are necessary to allow portions of the
existing concrete walkways located seaward of the coastal setback line to remain These
revisions are warranted because only those portions of the walkways which are located
farthest from the top of the bluff will be allowed to remain, the preservation of these
portions of the walkways provides the landowner/applicant with reasonable access to and
use of the rear yard, which is a right enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, the
remaining walkways create no adverse impacts upon adjacent properties, and the retention
of these portions of the walkways provides for private access to public coastal resources,
namely, the bluff -top Vanderlip Park trail along the rear of the subject property.
Section 2: Revisions to Condition 8 of P C Resolution No. 93-27 approving
Conditional Use Permit No 71 -Revision 'D' and Coastal Permit No 117 are necessary to
allow tract fencing modifications for the existing fence in the rear yard These revisions
are warranted because the modifications consist of the addition of only one or two courses
of concrete block at the bottom of the wrought -iron panels in the existing tract fencing,
with no increase in the height of the fencing, the modifications do not impair views from or
otherwise create adverse impacts upon adjacent and surrounding properties, and the
placement of open fencing along the side and rear property lines seaward of the coastal
setback line is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Specific Plan.
Section 3: Revisions to Condition 4 of P.C. Resolution No 94-57 approving
Variance No 378 are necessary to allow an existing freestanding light fixture located
seaward of the coastal structure setback line to remain at that location. These revisions
are warranted because the encroachment of the light fixture into the coastal structure
setback area is less than five feet (50"), the light fixture provides adequate lighting of
outdoor living areas in the rear yard, which is a right enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity; and the placement of the existing light fixture at this location is not materially
detrimental or injurious to adjacent and surrounding properties because it does not impair
views or create other adverse impacts.
P C. Resolution No 98-24
Page 3 of 11
0 0
Section 4: Revisions to Conditions 5 and 6 of P.C. Resolution No. 94-57
approving Variance No. 378 and the issuance of Site Plan Review No. 8252 are necessary
to allow an existing outdoor bar and barbecue to remain in the required side -yard setback
area These revisions and approvals are warranted because Condition 5 and 6 anticipated
a revision to the Development Code which would allow the outdoor bar and barbecue to
remain subject to site plan review approval, and the Development Code was so amended;
and approval of Site Plan Review No 8252 is warranted because the existing outdoor bar
and barbecue comply with the standards of the Development Code for the placement of
minor structures and equipment within required setback areas
Section 5: Issuance of Site Plan Review No 8252 is necessary to allow existing
retractable shades and awnings on the rear and sides of the house to remain Approval
of Site Plan Review No 8252 is warranted because, as conditioned, the existing shades
and awnings comply with the site development standards of the RS -1 district of the
Development Code
Section 6: Revisions to Condition 2 of Grading Permit No. 1717 are warranted
because all the Municipal Code violations cited in Condition 2, which existed at the time
that Grading Permit No 1717 was approved in 1994, have been addressed or otherwise
resolved through either action by the applicant/landowner to correct the violations, by
subsequent City decisions and approvals, or in the case of the front -yard fountain, by court
order
Section 7: The approval of Conditional Use Permit No 202 for exterior lighting
in excess of two thousand watts (2,000 W) total illumination warranted because it is
supported by the six (6) required findings for approval of a conditional use permit, to wit*
1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and for all of the
yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required by Title
17 "Zoning" or by conditions imposed under Section 17 60 050 to adjust said use
to those on abutting land and within the neighborhood because the subject property
is over two-thirds of an acre in area, all the existing exterior lighting fixtures comply
with the required setbacks for the property, with the exception of one freestanding
light pole which encroaches less than five feet (60") into the 25 -foot coastal
structure setback area, but this encroachment is minor and is permitted pursuant
to the recommended revisions to Variance No 378 which are included in this
Resolution.
2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the
type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use because the exterior
lighting of the site has no relationship to the amount traffic generated by the site.
P C. Resolution No 98-24
Page 4 of 11
3 In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant
adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof because
approximately seventy percent (70%) of the existing exterior lighting fixtures are
either ground -mounted uplights within planter areas or soffit -mounted downlights
which illuminate decks, patios and porches, which direct light in relatively narrow
beams which do not directly effect or illuminate adjacent properties, and of the
remaining thirty percent (30%) of fixtures, most are carnage lanterns which provide
general illumination of the grounds and do not cast direct light rays upon adjacent
properties.
4. The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan because the project site is
designated Residential, <1 DU/acre in the General Plan, which is intended to
accommodate low-density neighborhoods of detached single- family residences and
related uses and structures; and the existing exterior lighting fixtures are accessory
features which are consistent with the primary use of the property as a single-family
residence
5 The subject property is located within the Socio -Cultural (OC -2) and Urban
Appearance (OC -3) overlay control districts, but the existing exterior lighting has
no effect upon historical, archaeological or cultural resources, nor upon public view
corridors or predominant local landforms, and is, therefore, consistent with both the
OC -2 and OC -3 district standards
6 Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the
Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and
general welfare, have been imposed [including but not limited to]: number of
exterior lighting fixtures allowed; maintenance and use of exterior lighting fixtures;
and such other conditions as will make possible development of the City in an
orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth
in Title 17 "Zoning"
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 60 060 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 June 9, 1998, the
date of the Planning Commission's final action.
Section 9: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, including P.C.
Resolution No 93-27, P C. Resolution No 94-57 and the conditions of approval for
Grading Permit No 1717, which are attached hereto by reference, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Conditional Use Permit
P.0 Resolution No 98-24
Page 5 of 11
No. 202, Site Plan Review No. 8252 and miscellaneous revisions to previous City
approvals (as described above) for existing structures, additions and improvements to an
existing, single-family residence, located at 6470 Seacove Drive, 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 9th day of June 1998, by the following vote.
AYES Chairman Clark, Vice Chairman Cartwright, Commissioners Alberio,
Lyon, Paris, Slayden and Vannorsdall
NOES none
ABSTENTIONS. none
ABSENT none
Joel R has, AICP
Direc r of Plannin ilding
hnd-Code Enforcement, and, Secretary
to the Planning Commission
•na.
Lawrence E Clark
Chairman
P C Resolution No 98- 24
Page 6 of 11
EXHIBIT'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 202, ET AL.
(6470 Seacove Drive)
The following Conditions of Approval contained in P C Resolution No 93-27 are
amended to now read as indicated below (additions beidlibeI deletions struck -out)
13
.......... s o s d' Wit' iii LL sixty
-11 betwo' 'n" "the" .""11 remain * a :* q 't" 'It' e -
j . . 0
- n-. Done .> <.:. .. .. ..... r qpq
. . .... .. . ....... ....... ....
f68' I fte, t' ie adoption f Lis re��! iI'iId'o'w**i*ier s! la" niodufy
.. . I 1hon of the side and earyard fencing Located seaward of the Coastal[
Setback Line to cunforinwith the approved Tiact Ferl Plan
2 The following Conditions of Approval contained in P C Resolution No 94-57 are
amended to now read as indicated below (additions fed[lined deletions strack-out)
. .. . .... ... I
P C Resolution No 98-24
Page 7 of 11
gins Ed
ZM RZAIAKI L619 KEN L;;4WZNNT--I1k1Mt9Jr.-
I I L91111M ffifiliN,
0 Lzmalf Its a a 111-
il LWil,11111 111,111,91191 LEI 1zNW-- I I
11101--1,11I
j����Q
19 1 11 Z4 0 MYA I I III I 10 0 1111 LZM 1ZL9 L IN I I A;;0
9 0 ZI I 11111011111
KZT.— IIIIIIIIIIIIIIJ W
az?-- to" I LIZ ---
Lai
P C Resolution No 98-24
Page 7 of 11
3 The following Conditions of Approval contained for Grading Permit No 1717 are
amended to now read as indicated below (additions ellyd, deletions smock=oot)'
li•-
-• •
allLeff
MEELVAIIIIIIIIIIIINU ��ffl
4 This action approves all one hundred sixteen (116) existing exterior lighting fixtures
on the site, as identified by Staff during a site visit on January 13, 1998 and
summarized in Exhibit'B' of this Resolution. No additional exterior lighting fixtures
of any kind may be installed without the prior approval of a revision to Conditional
Use Permit No 202 by the Planning Commission.
5 All existing exterior lighting fixtures shall be maintained and used so that light
sources are directed toward and directly illuminate only the subject property, in
P C Resolution No. 98-24
Page 8 of 11
MEELVAIIIIIIIIIIIINU ��ffl
4 This action approves all one hundred sixteen (116) existing exterior lighting fixtures
on the site, as identified by Staff during a site visit on January 13, 1998 and
summarized in Exhibit'B' of this Resolution. No additional exterior lighting fixtures
of any kind may be installed without the prior approval of a revision to Conditional
Use Permit No 202 by the Planning Commission.
5 All existing exterior lighting fixtures shall be maintained and used so that light
sources are directed toward and directly illuminate only the subject property, in
P C Resolution No. 98-24
Page 8 of 11
compliance with the requirements of Section 17.56 030(A) of the Development
Code.
6 In compliance with Condition No 3a of P.C. Resolution No 93-27, the
applicant/landowner shall remove all but four (4) of the existing queen palms
(Syagrus romanzoffianum) from the site. The four (4) queen palms to remain are
highlighted in yellow on the landscape/site plan submitted to the City on May 15,
1998 The removal of the queen palms shall be completed within sixty (60) days
of the date of the City's final action on this application
7 In compliance with Condition No 7 of P.C. Resolution No. 93-27, as modified by
this Resolution, the applicant/landowner shall remove the four (4) concrete loop
walkways located completely seaward of the coastal setback line The four (4)
walkways to be removed are highlighted in pink on the landscape/site plan
submitted to the City on May 15, 1998. The removal of the walkways shall be
completed within sixty (60) days of the date of the City's final action on this
application.
8 The existing retractable awnings and shades shall be modified (if necessary) to
comply with the following conditions of approval (as originally required under Site
Plan Review No 7480)
a Awnings on the west side of the house may encroach a maximum of four
inches (4") per foot of required setback into the minimum 15 -foot westerly
side -yard setback, or no closer than ten feet (10'0") from the westerly side
property line
b. Awnings on the east side of the house may encroach a maximum of four
inches (4") per foot of required setback into the minimum 10 -foot easterly
side -yard setback, or no closer than six feet eight inches (68") from the
easterly side property line
c All other existing awnings and shades are approved in the location where
they are currently installed.
The applicant/landowner shall complete any necessary modifications and obtain
any necessary permits from the Building and Safety Division within sixty (60) days
of the date of the City's final action on this application
9. The existing outdoor bar and barbecue is approved in its current configuration and
location However, the applicant/landowner shall obtain any necessary permits
P C Resolution No 98-24
Page 9 of 11
from the Building and Safety Division within sixty (60) days of the date of the City's
final action on this application
10 The existing freestanding light fixture located seaward of the coastal structure
setback lane is approved in its current location However, the applicant/landowner
shall obtain any necessary permits from the Building and Safety Division within sixty
(60) days of the date of the City's final action on this application.
11 The landscape palette and plant locations depicted on the landscape/site plan
submitted to the City on May 15, 1998, are approved by this action, with the
exception that all but four (4) of the existing queen palms shall be removed as
described under Condition 5 above No replacement trees for the queen palms are
proposed or permitted by this approval. Any proposal for replacement trees or
other modifications to the landscape plan shall require prior review and approval
by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
12 The applicant/landowner and all successors -in -interest to the property located at
6470 Seacove Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, shall be bound in perpetuity by all
conditions of approval listed in this Resolution
13. All project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, in the RS -1
district and Coastal Specific Plan development standards of the City's Municipal
Code.
14 Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project by the Planning Commission after
conducting a public hearing on the matter, or any other enforcement method
available to the City
15. Unless otherwise modified by this approval, all applicable conditions of approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 39672, Conditional Use Permit No. 71 and revisions,
Grading Permit No 1440, Variance No 357 and related entitlements, Variance
No 358 and related entitlements, Variance No. 378 and related entitlements, and
Grading Permit No 1717 remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
P C Resolution No 98-24
Page 10 of 11
•
EXHIBIT'S'
SUMMARY OF EXISTING EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 202, ET AL.
(6470 Seacove Drive)
Front -Yard Fixtures
1) Carriage lanterns (5 bulbs (30OW maximum) per fixture)
Locations. Front -yard fence pilasters (4)
House and garage walls (5)
2) Soffit -mounted downlights (1 bulb (wattage unknown) per fixture)
Location Above front door (1)
3) Ground -mounted uplights and floodlights (1 bulb (wattage unknown) per fixture)
Locations; In fountain (4)
Surrounding fountain and planter (5)
Inside planters under palm trees (25)
4) Address numerals (neon (wattage unknown))
Location. Street side of garage (1)
Side- and Rear -Yard Fixtures
5) Carriage lanterns (5 bulbs (30OW maximum) per fixture)
Locations* House walls (12)
Freestanding walls and pilasters (9)
6) Soffit -mounted downlights (1 bulb (wattage unknown) per fixture)
Location Above upper covered deck (12)
Above lower covered patio (13)
7) Ground -mounted uplights and floodlights (1 bulb (wattage unknown) per fixture)
Locations- Inside planters along westerly property line (21)
8) Freestanding yard lights (approx. 10' tall, 5 bulbs (wattage unknown) per fixture)
Locations. Rear yard near pool and outdoor bar/barbecue (2)
9) Motion detector lights (unknown bulbs and wattage)
Locations East wall of house (2)
Total Number of Fixtures 116
M \USERS\KITF\WPWIN60\PROJECTS\CUP202\CUP202 RES
PC Resolution No 98-24
Page 11 of 11