PC RES 2000-008Y f s
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL,
THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION AND
APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 888 AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 8637 FOR APPROVAL OF A 765 SQUARE FOOT
FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION WHICH MEASURES
237' IN HEIGHT, LOCATED AT 27041 WHITESTONE ROAD.
WHEREAS, on May 11, 1999, the applicants, Mr & Mrs. Celly submitted
applications for Height Variation No. 888 and Site Plan Review No 8637 for
approval of additions totaling 765 square feet consisting of an 84 square foot first
story addition, and a 681 square foot second story addition which measures 23'9"
in height to the residence located at 27041 Whitestone Road; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Quality Act, Public
Resource Code Section 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 Height Variation No 888
and Site Plan Review No 8637 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, on December 13, 1999, the Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement reviewed and conditionally approved Height Variation No. 888,
and Site Plan Review No. 8637, based upon the necessary finding of fact, to wit
that the additions meets all nine findings for approval of a height variation set
forth in RPVDC Section 17 02 040.0 1 e.; and,
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2000, within the fifteen days following the
Director's decision, the appellants- Dr and Mrs Landisman; Mr. Duschak and Ms
Knight; and Mrs. Lakhani, filed a timely appeal to the Planning Commission,
requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's approval of
Height Variation No. 888 and Site Plan Review No 8637, and,
WHEREAS, after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on February 22, 2000, 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 25% of the property owners within the 500' radius, and 70% of the
property owners within the 100' radius of the subject property
Section 2: The proposed addition does not significantly impair a view
from a viewing area from any public property identified in the City's General Plan,
and the property is not located within the Coastal Specific Plan area, therefore the
proposed addition does not significantly impair a view from public property
Section 3: The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or
promontory since the highest ridge and the elongated crest in the tract is located
to the east of the subject site Also, there are no canyons located adjacent to this
neighborhood and the property is not situated along the coastal bluffs.
Section 4: The proposed second story addition, when considered
exclusive of foliage, does not significantly impair a primary view since none of
the adjacent properties enjoy a view overlooking the site in the direction of the
proposed project, as discussed below:
27035 Whitestone Road - Located to the north of the project site, the proposed
addition will not significantly impair a view from this residence since the only
view the lot has is a far view of the city basin from the rear of the property. The
view of the city basin is primarily to the west, and will not be impacted by the
proposed addition which is to the south Therefore, the proposed addition will
not impact any protected views from this adjacent property
27103 Whitestone Road - Located to the south of the project site, the proposed
addition will not significantly impair a view from this residence since the only
view the lot has is also a far view of the city basin from the rear of the property.
Also, the view of the city basin is primarily to the west, and will not be impacted
by the proposed addition which is to the north Therefore, the proposed addition
will not impact any protected views from this adjacent property.
27040 Whitestone Road — Located to east of the project site, the proposed
addition will not significantly impair a view from this residence since the potential
for any view to west is blocked by the existing one story residences. Therefore,
the proposed addition will not impact any protected views from this adjacent
property.
27040 Springcreek Road — Located to the west of the project site, the proposed
addition will not significantly impair a view since the property is downs) ape from
P C Resolution No 2000-08
Page 2 of 4
the applicant's property and does not enjoy a view in the direction of the
proposed addition. Therefore, the proposed addition will not impact any
protected views from this adjacent property.
Section 5: No cumulative view impairment will result from granting the
applicant's request since no primary protected views are impacted by the
proposed addition.
Section 6: No primary protected views from the surrounding properties
would be significantly impacted by the proposed project since the neighboring
properties do not enjoy a view in the direction of the proposed addition.
Therefore, the project is designed and situated in such a way to minimize view
impairment
Section 7: The proposed structure will be constructed in accordance with
the residential development guidelines of the City's Municipal Code, if the Height
Variation and Site Plan Review is granted. Since the proposal does comply with
all other Code requirements, and the findings related to the Height Variation can
be made, the proposed project complies with the intent of this finding
Furthermore, the proposed addition will also be required to comply with all safety
standards of the Uniform Building Codes, and be reviewed, inspected and
approved by the Building and Safety Division.
Section 8: Due to the variation within the tract, the proposed structure is
compatible with the residences along Whitestone Road and within the tract since
the total bulk and mass is comparable to the existing two story split level
residence sizes. Also, the apparent mass of the structure will be similar in size
and configuration to other two-story split level residences along Whitestone
Road, and the proposed 3' to 12' pitched roof is common throughout this tract
Section 9: The proposed addition will not infringe on the privacy of the
property to the south, 27103 Whitestone Road since there are no windows in the
proposed project hat overlook the rear yard area, and the new bathroom window
faces the neighbor's structure fagade Further, the proposed addition will not
infringe on the privacy to the north at 27035 Whitestone Road or to the
downslope residences at 27046 and 27040 Spring Creek Road since the proposed
addition will not afford the subject property a significant view into the outdoor
gathering area As a result, the proposed addition will not create unreasonable
infringement to the interior or outdoor privacy on any abutting residences
P C Resolution No. 2000-08
Page 3 of 4
Section 10: The Site Plan Review for the first story addition and the 180
square foot non-permitted trellis can be granted, since the proposed structure
conforms to Development Code Section 17.70.010.
Section 11: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected
in this Resolution must be sought, if available, is governed by Section 1094.6 of
the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 12: For the foregoing reasons based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report, and other record of proceeding, which are
attached hereto by reference, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes denies the appeal, thereby upholding the Director's decision and
approving Height Variation No. 888 and Site Plan Review No. 8637 for approval of
additions totaling 765 square feet consisting of an 84 square foot first story
addition, and a 681 square foot second story addition which measures 23'9" in
height to the residence, as measured from the highest existing grade covered by
structure (elevation of 99.0') to the proposed ridgeline (elevation of 122.75'), to an
existing 2,310 square foot one-story residence, for the property located at 27041
Whitestone 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 22nd day of February 2000, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Alberio , Clark, Slayden, Chairman Cartwright
NOES: Commissioner Paris
ABSENTATIONS: NONE
ABSENT: Commissioner Vannorsdall, Vice Cha man o
_AKP `^m
•n Cartwright
hairman
J /
Joel Rojas, AICP
Director of Plan • Building
and Code Enforcement; and
Secretary to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2000-08
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 888 AND
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8637
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety "plan check", the
applicant shall submit to the City a statement, that they have read,
understand and agree to all the conditions of approval contained herein.
Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days of
approval shall render this approval null and void
2 The approval shall be null and void after six (6) months from the date of
approval unless the approved plans are submitted to the Building and
Safety Division to initiate the "plan check" review process, pursuant to
Section 17.86 070 .,of the City's Development Code This approval shall
become null and void after initiating the "plan check" review process, or
receiving a building permit to begin construction, said "plan check" or
permit is allowed to expire or is withdrawn by the applicant.
3. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized
to make minor modifications to the approved preliminary plans or any of
the conditions if such modifications shall achieve substantially the
same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions.
4. The abandonment or non-use of this approval after a period of six
months shall terminate the approval and any privileges granted
hereunder shall become null and void.
HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
5 The proposed addition shall not exceed 765 square feet in area (which
consists of an 84 square foot addition to the first story, and a 681
square foot second story addition.
6. The applicant shall provide to the Building and Safety Division a
certification that the proposed ridgeline does not exceed twenty-three
feet nine inches (23'9"), as measured from 'the highest existing grade
covered by -structure to the proposed ridgeline (elevation of 122 75')
RIDGE HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED.
7. No windows shall be located on the northern fagade of the structure
closest to the property line.
Exhibit "A"
December 13, 1999
Page 2
8 No balconies or roof decks are permitted with this approval.
9 The applicant shall demolish 120 square feet of the 300 square foot non -
permitted trellis that is located at the rear of the property No portion of
the trellis structure shall encroach into the minimum 150" rear yard
setback.
10. Prior to submittal of plans to "plan check" in the Building and Safety
Division, the applicant shall submit a geology trust deposit for the City's
Geotechnical Engineer to conduct a site visit to determine if a
geology/soils report is required for the proposed project The applicant
shall comply with any recommendation of the City's Geotechnical
Engineer.
11 The proposed pilasters and wall that are located in the front yard area
shall not exceed 42" in height (proposed 42"), or encroach into the
public right-of-way. No light fixtures on these pilasters and walls are
permitted with this approval.
12. A total of three (3) skylights and three (3) bay windows are permitted
with this approval.
13 If either property owner at 27046 Spring Creek Road or 27040 Spring
Creek Road chooses to plant foliage on their respective slopes to
provide additional privacy protection, the applicant shall contribute
$500.00 to the property owner at 27046 Spring Creek Road and $1,000.00
to the property owner at 27040 Spring Creek Road to help pay for the
cost of said foliage installation The payments shall be made by the
appellant only if an invoice for the foliage installation is submitted to the
Director by either property owner within one (1) year from the issuance
of the Certificate of Occupancy for the second story addition and the
Director verifies that the foliage has been planted
MISCELLANEOUS
14 The minimum setbacks shall conform to the approved plans, but in no
case shall be less than:
Front: 20' Sides: 5' Rear. 15'
15 A minimum of forty-eight (48%) percent of open space shall be
maintained on the property (proposed- 60%).
Exhibit "A" 0
December 13, 1999
Page 3
16 No grading has been proposed or approved in conjunction with the
construction of this project.
17 No foliage is required to be removed during the time of construction.
18 The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p m ,
Monday through Saturday No construction shall be permitted on
Sundays or legal holidays.
19 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 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
20 The construction of the 765 square foot addition shall conform to the
approved plans submitted to the Department of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement stamp dated October 18, 1999