PC RES 1999-043A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING
VARIANCE NO. 461, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 159 AND
GRADING PERMIT NO. 2144, THEREBY PERMITTING
ADDITIONS IN EXCESS OF TWO HUNDRED FIFTY
SQUARE FEET (250 FT2) TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE
THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE COASTAL SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPERTY AND ONE HUNDRED
SIXTY-SIX CUBIC YARDS (166 YD 3) OF RELATED
GRADING, LOCATED AT 38 SEACOVE DRIVE
WHEREAS, on September 1, 1999, the applicants, Gene and Terry Rolle, submitted
applications for Variance No. 461, Coastal Permit No. 159 and Grading Permit No 2144
to allow additions to an existing, 1 -story single-family residence on a 1.10 -acre lot on
Seacove Drive in the Abalone Cove community, where the existing residence does not
conform with the coastal setback and coastal structure setback lines of the property; and,
WHEREAS, on October 25, 1999, the applications for Variance No 461, Coastal
Permit No. 159 and Grading Permit No. 2144 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 Variance No. 461, Coastal Permit No 159 and
Grading Permit No. 2144 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore,
the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15301(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 November 23, 1999, 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 Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact
with respect to the application for Variance No. 461 for additions in excess of two hundred
fifty square feet (250 ft') to an existing structure located partially seaward of the coastal
setback line (CSL) and coastal structure setback line (CSSL):
P.C. Resolution No 99-43
Page 1 of 9
0
A. 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 because for most of the other
lots on the seaward side of Seacove Drive, the coastal setback line (CSL) is located
only about fifty feet (50'0") inland from the bluff edge, while the CSL for the subject
property is located approximately one hundred feet (100'0") inland from the bluff
edge, and this difference in setback from the bluff edge results in less of the flatter
area of the subject property being available for development than is the case for
other bluff -top lots in this area
B Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners
under like conditions in the same zoning district because the shorter distance from
the bluff edge to the CSL on the other bluff -top lots on Seacove Drive allows the
homes on these other lots to encroach much closer to the bluff edge—but still in
compliance with the 25 -foot coastal structure setback line (CSSL)—than is permitted
on the subject property; and a large number of other homes in the Abalone Cove
community, which either do not encroach seaward of the CSL or CSSL or are
located on the inland side of Seacove Drive, are not constrained by the 250 -square -
foot limitation on additions that is applied to the subject property
C Granting 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
because the basis for establishing the CSL and CSSL is to ensure the safety of
private property owners and the general public; the applicants have provided
geotechnical analysis that demonstrates that a factor of safety of 1 5 1 is provided
at a point that is closer to the bluff edge than the CSSL, and the foundation system
for the new additions will be located inland from the 1 5 1 factor -of -safety line, while
the foundations of the existing structures located seaward of this line will be
enhanced to provide a factor of safety of 1 5 1
D Granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan and
the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan because the General Plan
and Coastal Specific Plan land use designations for the Abalone Cove community
are Residential, 1-2 DU/acre, which permits the development of accessory
structures and additions for single-family residences and is consistent with General
Plan Housing Policy No 3 to "[encourage] and assist in the maintenance and
improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum
local standards of housing quality and design", the proposed project is consistent
with the General Plan's Socio/Cultural Overlay Control District standards and similar
goals and objectives regarding socio/cultural factors in Subregion 4 of the Coastal
Specific Plan, which call upon the City to "preserve, protect and maintain land and
water areas and improvements with significant historical, archaeological or cultural
P C Resolution No 99-43
Page 2 of 9
importance," by avoiding impacts to the sensitive bluff -face areas; and the proposed
project is consistent with a number of the resource management provisions of the
Natural Environment elements of the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan by
providing geotechnical studies to demonstrate "that the design and setbacks are
adequate to insure public safety" (General Plan Natural Environment Element Policy
No 1), which is also consistent with Coastal Specific Plan Natural Environment
Element Policy No. 2 * to "perform at least one.. independent engineering
[study] ... concerning the geotechnical, soils and other stability factors... affecting the
site"; and the proposed project has no impact upon sensitive bluff scrub habitat and
unstable soils on the bluff face, which is consistent with General Plan Natural
Environment Element Policy No. 9 and Coastal Specific Plan Natural Environment
Element Policy No 3 regarding preservation of natural habitat and minimizing
disturbance of unstable soils.
Section 2: The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact
with respect to the application for Coastal Permit No. 159 and the consistency of the
proposed project with the Coastal Specific Plan.
A. The proposed development is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan, based upon
the preceding discussion of Finding D for Variance No. 461.
B. The proposed development, which is located between the sea and the first public
road, is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the
Coastal Act because, although the proposed project meets the definition of "new
development" under Section 30212(b) the Coastal Act, no provisions of public
access are required of this project since adequate public coastal access exists at
the City's nearby Abalone Cove Beach Park; and the project site is a developed,
single-family residence and is unsuitable for water -oriented recreational activities
Section 3: The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact
with respect to the application for Grading Permit No. 2144 for one hundred sixty-six cubic
yards (166 yd 3) of grading related to the construction of the proposed additions•
A The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use
of the lot because the proposed quantity of grading is relatively small and is
consistent with the permitted primary use of the lot as a single-family residence.
B. The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the
visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties because the
proposed additions will comply with the 16 -foot height limit; the proposed additions
exceed the minimum front- and side -yard setback requirements, and the house will
not be extended any further seaward toward the bluff edge.
P.C. Resolution No 99-43
Page 3 of 9
C The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished
contours are reasonably natural because most of the proposed grading will occur
on a gentle downslope on the street side of the property; there will be only one 3 -
foot -tall retaining wall adjacent to the driveway, which will not be visible from the
street or other properties, and there will be no grading or development on the
seaward side of the house except for an on -grade patio
D The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and
appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or
manufactured slope into the natural topography because the most significant
topographic feature of the property—the bluff edge and face on the seaward side
of the house—will not be disturbed by the proposed project.
E The required finding that, for new single-family residences, the grading and/or
related construction is comparable with the immediate neighborhood character is not
applicable because the proposed project does not involve the construction of a new,
single-family residence
F The required finding that, in new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions
for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from
soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction
on hillside areas is not applicable because the proposed project does not involve the
development of a new residential tract.
G The required finding that the grading utilizes street designs and improvements which
serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and
character of the hillside is not applicable because the proposed project does not
involve the construction of new streets or other right-of-way improvements
H The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation because the bluff edge
and face will not be disturbed by the proposed project, and these are the only areas
of the site where natural landscape or wildlife habitat is likely to occur
The grading conforms to all of the standards established under RPVDC Section
17 76 040(E)(9), including maximum created slope, maximum depth of cut or fill,
limitations upon grading on slopes exceeding fifty percent, limitations upon the
number and height of upslope retaining walls, and maximum driveway slope
Section 4: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council Pursuant to Sections 17 64 060, 17 72 100
and 17 76 040(E)(9)(e) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must
P C Resolution No 99-43
Page 4 of 9
be filed with the City, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen
(15) days following November 23, 1999, the date of the Planning Commission's final action.
Section 5: 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 Variance No 461,
Coastal Permit No. 159 and Grading Permit No. 2144, thereby permitting additions in
excess of two hundred fifty square feet (250 ft2) to an existing residence that does not
conform to the coastal setback requirements of the property and one hundred sixty-six
cubic yards (166 yd 3) of related grading, located at 38 Seacove Drive, subject to the
conditions contained in Exhibit W, 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 23rd day of November 1999, by the following
vote
AYES: Chairman Cartwright, Vice Chairman Lyon, Commissioner Clark,
Paris and Slayden
NOES none
ABSTENTIONS none
ABSENT:
Commissioners Alberio anc
Joel oras, AICP
Dire or of Planning, �dilding
aaeCode Enforcement, and, Secretary
to the Planning Commission
Chairman
P.C. Resolution No. 99-43
Page 5 of 9
EXHIBIT W
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR VARIANCE NO. 461, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 159
AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2144
(38 Seacove Drive)
General
Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and
the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have
read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Resolution Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days
following date of this approval shall render this approval null and void
2. This approval is for the addition of 2,193 square feet of new living area (including the
conversion of the existing 632 -square -foot garage into living area), the construction
of a new 1,021 -square -foot, 3 -car garage and 166 cubic yards of related grading for
an existing, single-family residence at 38 Seacove Drive The maximum height of
the residence shall be sixteen feet (160") above the highest point of the existing pad
to be covered by the structure, and twenty feet (20'0") above the lowest point of the
finished pad to be covered by the structure. The maximum ridgeline elevation of the
residence shall be 173.25' One hundred sixty-six cubic yards (166 yd 3) of grading
are permitted by this approval, consisting of one hundred thirty-nine cubic yards
(139 yd 3) of cut and twenty-seven cubic yards (27 yd 3) of fill Any substantive
change to the project shall require approval of a revision to Variance No 461,
Coastal Permit No 159 and/or Grading Permit No 2144 by the Planning
Commission and shall require new and separate environmental review
3 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 -2 district
development standards of the City's Municipal Code
4 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
5 If the project has not been established (i e , building permits obtained) within one
year of the final effective date of this Resolution, or if construction has not
commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the issuance of building
permits, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior
to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Director Otherwise, a
P C Resolution No 99-43
Page 6 of 9
variance, coastal permit and grading permit revision must be approved prior to
further development
6. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
7. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed
in substantial conformance with the plans submitted to the City on October 15, 1999,
entitled "Addition and Remodel for Gene and Terry Rolle, 38 Seacove Drive,
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275," prepared by Miles Pritzkat of Edward
Carson Beall, AIA & Associates.
8 Prior to the issuance of building permits by the Building and Safety Division, the
applicant shall obtain final approval of the project by the City's geotechnical
consultant.
9 The applicant shall submit plans for any proposed improvements within the public
right-of-way of Seacove Drive for the review and approval of the Director of Public
Works All curb, gutter and drive aprons shall conform to City standards
10 The applicant shall ensure that at least fifty percent (50%) of the 20 -foot front -yard
setback area is maintained as landscaped area This approval does not include any
structures within the front -yard area in excess of forty-two inches (42") in height
11. Notwithstanding the plans submitted to the City of October 15, 1999, this approval
does not include
a The proposed pool, which requires separate approval of a site plan review
application; or,
b The 6 -foot -tall fence at the front property line, which requires separate
approval of a minor exception permit application
12 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 not be limited to: the accumulation of debris,
garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials,
abandoned or discarded furniture, appliance or other household fixtures.
13. The hours of grading and/or 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.
P.C. Resolution No 99-43
Page 7 of 9
14. There is existing foliage on the subject property that significantly impairs protected
views from nearby residences. This foliage includes numerous pine trees in the
front yard area PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT'
a Minor branches and foliage shall be trimmed and removed up to the height
of the maximum proposed ridgeline of the house (173.25).
b Foliage in the crowns of the trees shall be thinned and laced above the
elevation of the maximum proposed ridgeline of the house (173.25')
C. Hedges along the side property lines shall be trimmed down to the height of
the maximum proposed ridgeline of the house (173.25).
d Trees and foliage within the footprint of the proposed additions and driveway
shall be removed
15. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section
17 56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, and shall not exceed
2,000 W incandescent (or equivalent) No single lighting fixture may exceed 150 W
incandescent (or equivalent).
Variance No 461 and Coastal Permit No. 159
16. The structure shall comply with the following setbacks'
Front: 75'01" Sides: 7'0" West and 12'6" East Rear: no change
The applicant shall provide certification of the front and side setbacks at the time of
foundation form inspection by the Building and Safety Division
17. The maximum height of the residence shall not exceed 16.00' (as measured from
the highest point of the existing pad to be covered by the structure (157.25')) and
18.45' (as measured from the finished pad adjacent to the lowest foundation
(154.80')) to the highest point of the structure, including roofing materials. The
maximum ridgeline elevation shall be 173.25'. ' Ridge height certification shall be
required prior to building permit final Inspection.
18. The maximum structure size permitted by this approval is 5,164 square feet,
including the 3 -car garage. Structure size certification shall be required prior to
building permit final inspection
19 The project shall maintain a minimum of 75% open -space coverage [84 8%
proposed]
P.C. Resolution No. 99-43
Page 8 of 9
20 The project shall provide (at least) a 3 -car garage with minimum interior dimensions
of 27'0" wide and 20'0" deep The maximum driveway slope permitted is twenty
percent (20%). [6.4% proposed]
21. With the exception of the on -grade patio depicted on the plans, no new structures
or improvements are permitted on the seaward side of the existing house
22. The grading approved by this permit consists of one hundred thirty-nine cubic yards
(139 yd 3) of cut and twenty-seven cubic yards (27 yd 3) of fill. The maximum upslope
retaining wall height permitted is eight feet (8'0"). [three feet (3'0" proposed]
23 No grading activity is permitted within the existing 7.5 -foot -wide drainage easement
or in any areas on the seaward side of the existing house.
24. The applicant shall furnish the City with copies of landfill receipts for the approved
export of one hundred twelve cubic yards (112 yd 3) prior to Building Permit final
M TrojectsWAR 461 _CP 159—GR 2144 (Rolle)\l 9991123—Reso—PC.doc
P.C. Resolution No 99-43
Page 9 of 9