PC RES 2000-033P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING
VARIANCE NO. 471, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 165 AND
GRADING PERMIT NO. 2192, THEREBY PERMITTING THE
ADDITION OF ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-
SEVEN SQUARE FEET (1,567 FT 2) OF LIVING AREA AND
SEVENTY-SIX CUBIC YARDS (76 YD 3) OF RELATED
GRADING FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 114 SPINDRIFT DRIVE
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000, the applicants, Mark and Ellen Beal, received
City Council approval of Moratorium Exception Permit No 30 for an addition to their home
on Spindrift Drive in the Portuguese Bend Club community, which is located within the
City's landslide moratorium area, and,
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2000, the Beals submitted applications for Variance No 471,
Coastal Permit No 165 and Grading Permit No 2192 to allow a 1,567 -square -foot addition
and seventy-six cubic yards (76 yd 3) of related grading to the existing, 2 -story single-family
residence on a 5,350 -square -foot lot, which is located completely seaward of the coastal
setback line and does not comply with the required front- and side -yard setbacks, and,
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2000, the applications for Variance No 471, Coastal Permit
No 165 and Grading Permit No 2192 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 471, Coastal Permit No 165 and
Grading Permit No 2192 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore,
the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15301), and,
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2000, the City and the applicant agreed to a 90 -day
extension of the decision deadline for these applications, 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 September 12, 2000 and September 26, 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 Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact
with respect to the application for Variance No. 471 for the addition of one thousand five
hundred sixty-seven square feet (1,567 ftZ) to the existing structure located completely
seaward of the coastal setback line (CSL); a 40 -square -foot section of roof deck that does
not comply with the development standards for such decks; front- and side -yard setback
and lot area open space reductions; increased fence height in the front -yard setback area;
and construction over an extreme slope area
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 all of the lots in the
"lower' Portuguese Bend Club community are located seaward of the coastal
setback line (CSL) established by the City's Coastal Specific Plan so that any
addition in excess of the 250 -square -foot threshold requires a variance, even if it
otherwise meets the development standards of the underlying zoning district.
However, these lots are all much smaller than the minimum 20,000 -square -foot lot
required by the RS -2 zoning district standards, and few of these homes meet the
RS -2 setback or open space requirements. These factors constitute exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances that do not generally apply to other RS -2 -zoned
properties in the City.
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 Portuguese Bend Club
community is a unique area and most of the existing lots and structures do not meet
current City development standards. Most previous additions to homes in this area
have needed variances, usually for setbacks and lot coverage, and the subject
property is typical of the homes and properties in the Portuguese Bend Club
community in that it does not comply with the RS -2 development standards.
Therefore, variances would necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
property rights similar to those enjoyed by other properties in the immediate vicinity
of 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 proposed variances do not significantly increase the existing non-
conforming conditions on the project site These non -conformities are similar to
those occurring on many other properties in this area and their approval should not
have adverse impacts upon other properties in the immediate vicinity. The project
has also received conceptual geotechnical approval through the landslide
moratorium exception permit process. Therefore, the approval of the requested
variances will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property and improvements in the immediate area of the subject property.
P C. Resolution No. 2000-33
Page 2 of 12
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 "lower" Portuguese Bend
Club community are both Residential, 1-2 DU/acre, and the development of
additions to single-family residences is consistent with this underlying land use
designation, as long as any issues related to soil stability are addressed The
improvement of existing residences is consistent with General Plan Housing Policy
No 3 (p 78) 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 project site is also subject to the General Plan's
Socio/Cultural Overlay Control District standards (p.204) which call upon the City to
"preserve, protect and maintain land and water areas and improvements with
significant historical, archaeological or cultural importance " The project site is a
developed residential lot and its further development will have no adverse impact
upon socio/cultural resources Similar goals and objectives are analyzed in
discussion of socio/cultural factors in Subregion 6 of the Coastal Specific Plan
(p S64) Finally, the subject property is affected by General Plan Resource
Management Districts 1 (RM 1 -Sea Cliff Erosion) and 8 (RM 8 -Wildlife Habitat) and
Coastal Resources Management Districts 1 (CRM 1 -Extreme Slope), 3 (CRM 2 -
Geologic Hazard), 4 (CRM 4 -Marginally Stable) and 7 (CRM 7 -Flood Inundation
Hazard) The applicants have submitted 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 " 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 Therefore, the requested variances
are consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of both the General Plan and
the Coastal Specific Plan
Section 2: The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact
with respect to the application for Coastal Permit No 165 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 471
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
P C Resolution No 2000-33
Page 3 of 12
access are required of this project since adequate nearby public coastal access
exists at the City's nearby Abalone Cove Beach Park and at the Ocean Trails
project The project site is a developed, single-family residence and is unsuitable
for water -oriented recreational activities. Therefore, the proposed project is
consistent with the applicable public access and recreation policies of Articles 2 and
3 of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
Section 3: The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact
with respect to the application for Grading Permit No. 2192 for seventy-six cubic yards (76
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.
Therefore, the scope and quantity of grading is not excessive
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 for the property. The
additions at the back of the house are mainly open decks and balconies, and the
new living area at the rear of the house is arranged in "steps" that provide for a view
corridor through the easterly side -yard toward Portuguese Point from residences on
the inland side of Spindrift Drive. The proposed downslope retaining walls will be
primarily visible from the subject property, and will not impair views from the
adjacent residence at 116 Spindrift Drive. Therefore, the project grading has no
adverse aesthetic or view impacts upon neighboring properties
C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished
contours are reasonably natural because most of the proposed grading outside of
the building footprint will occur within the existing easterly side -yard area, to enlarge
the existing terraces adjacent to the upper-level entry and the lower -level deck.
None of this grading will be visible from the right-of-way of Spindrift Drive, and it will
also be screened by existing vegetation on the slope below the house. Therefore,
the proposed project minimizes the disturbance of the natural contours of the lot
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 most of the existing
undeveloped slope areas of the property will remain undeveloped as a result of the
project Therefore, the proposed project takes into account the preservation of
natural topographic features
P.C. Resolution No. 2000-33
Page 4 of 12
0 0
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, as discussed
above, most of the existing undeveloped slope areas of the lot will not be disturbed
by the proposed project These are the only areas of the site where natural
landscape or wildlife habitat is likely to occur and, as such, the proposed project
would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape
or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation.
1. The grading does not conform to all of the standards established under RPVDC
Section 17 76.040(E)(9). The proposed project involves the construction of two
downslope retaining walls, both in excess of the 3'l2 -foot height standard. RPVDC
Section 17.76.040(E)(10) permits deviations from the grading standards of
subsection (E)(9), based upon the following additional findings:
The criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) of RPVDC Section 17.76.040
can be made, as discussed under Findings 3A through 3H above.
The approval of the deviations is consistent with the purposes set for in
RPVDC Section 17.76.040(A), which states that the purposes of the City's
grading regulations include ensuring reasonable development of property
while protecting against earth movement and other hazards, preserving
natural scenic character, encouraging harmonious development to minimize
hazards and maintain positive visual aspects; and ensuring consistency with
the City's General Plan. The two retaining walls will allow for reasonable use
of the side -yard area of the property—which has been previously disturbed—
without significant alteration to existing undisturbed areas of the property
The design of the walls will receive final approval by the City's geotechnical
P C. Resolution No. 2000-33
Page 5 of 12
0 0
consultant prior to construction They will not create negative visual impacts
for adjacent properties.
iii. Departures from the standards of RPVDC Section 17 76.040(E)(9) will not
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity because the construction of more than one
downslope retaining wall is not uncommon on steeply -sloped lots such as the
subject property. The purpose of these walls is to create adequate level
areas at the entrance of the house and adjacent to the lower -level deck. The
need for adequate level areas for access to the upper and lower levels of the
house is a reasonable request for this type of lot and does not constitute a
grant of special privileges.
iv Departures from the standards of RPVDC Section 17 76 040(E)(9) will not be
detrimental to the public safety nor to other property because using two walls
allows the apparent mass of the retaining walls to be broken up into isolated
segments, rather than utilizing a larger number of shorter walls. The
appearance of these walls will be largely screened from below by existing
foliage on the property Also, the design of the walls will be reviewed by the
City's geotechnical consultant and by the Building and Safety Division.
Section 4: The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact
with respect to the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding residences:
A. The proposed project is compatible with the scale of surrounding residences
because an analysis of the surrounding residences shows that the proposed project
will be larger than at least nine of the ten closest surveyed homes. However, much
of the proposed additional square footage will occur on the lower level of the home
or in other areas of the around the structure that are currently improved but not
enclosed (i e , the front patio area and the exterior stairway) The scale of the
proposed project will be in keeping with the surrounding residences because the
much of the addition will not be visible from the street, and where it is visible, it
occurs in areas that are already developed (i.e., the front patio). The proposed
project will maintain a single -story profile at Spindrift Drive, which is consistent with
the homes on other downslope lots within the surveyed area. Therefore, although
it will be substantially larger than many other homes, the design of the proposed
project creates an apparent bulk, mass and scale that are in keeping with the scale
of surrounding residences
B. The proposed project is compatible with the architectural styles and materials of
surrounding residences because the existing homes in the "lower" Portuguese Bend
Club community was originally developed as beach cottages and they employed
simple construction, flat roofs and wooden siding. Most of the surveyed homes on
P.0 Resolution No 2000-33
Page 6 of 12
0 0
downslope lots (such as the subject property) incorporate flat roofs and elements
of beach -cottage design. The proposed project incorporates a combination of
vernacular beach -cottage architecture with applied stone and other elements of
Craftsman design This combination of elements results in an aesthetically pleasing
design that will fit in well with the surrounding residences
C The proposed project is compatible with the front -yard setbacks of surrounding
residences because none of the other homes surveyed appears to comply with the
required 20 -foot front setback requirement. In addition, many of the homes have 5 -
to 6 -foot -tall fences at or very near the front property line, similar to the existing (and
proposed) fence on the subject property Therefore, the proposed front setback for
this project is compatible with the surrounding residences.
Section 5: 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
be filed with the City, in writing and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen
(15) days following September 26, 2000, the date of the Planning Commission's final
action
Section 6: 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 471,
Coastal Permit No 165 and Grading Permit No. 2192, thereby permitting the addition of
one thousand five hundred sixty-seven square feet (1,567 ft2) of living area and seventy-six
cubic yards (76 yd 3) of related grading for an existing single-family residence, located at
114 Spindrift 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.
P C Resolution No 2000-33
Page 7 of 12
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of September 2000, by the following
vote
AYES Chairman Lyon, Vice Chairman Clark, Commissioners Cartwright
and Paulson
NOES Commissioners Long and Mueller
ABSTENTIONS none
ABSENT Commissioner Vannorsdall
��d
Frank Lyon
Chairman
J el K )as, AICP
D ec r of Plannin , Building
an Code Enforcement; and, Secretary
to the Planning Commission
P C Resolution No 2000-33
Page 8 of 12
0
EXHIBIT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR VARIANCE NO. 471, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 165
AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2192
(114 Spindrift 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 1,567 square feet of new living area and 76 cubic
yards of related grading for an existing, single-family residence at 114 Seacove
Drive. The maximum height of the residence shall be sixteen feet (160") above
ve the
average elevation at the 20 -foot front -yard setback line, and thirty (30'0") above the
lowest point of the finished grade to be covered by the structure. The maximum
ridgeline elevation of the residence shall be 112.05'. Seventy-six cubic yards
(76 yd 3) of grading are permitted by this approval, consisting of thirty-six cubic yards
(36 yd 3) of cut and forty cubic yards (40 yd 3) of fill. The Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the
approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will
achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved
plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require
approval of a revision to Variance No. 471, Coastal Permit No 165 and/or Grading
Permit No. 2192 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,
P C. Resolution No. 2000-33
Page 9 of 12
Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Director. Otherwise, a
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 stamped APPROVED by the City as of the
effective date of this Resolution.
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 approved project shall be subject to all of the conditions of approval for
Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 30, as adopted by the City Council on
February 15, 2000. Said conditions of approval are incorporated herein by this
reference
10 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
11. 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.
12. There is existing foliage on the subject property that significantly impairs protected
views from nearby residences This foliage includes the pine tree in the easterly
side -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 (112.05')
b. Foliage in the crown of the tree shall be trimmed, thinned and laced above
the elevation of the maximum proposed ridgeline of the house (112.05').
P C Resolution No 2000-33
Page 10 of 12
C. Any remaining foliage and shrubs along the front- and side -yard fences shall
be trimmed down to six feet (6'0") or the height of the fence, whichever is
lower
13. 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
1,000 W incandescent (or equivalent) No single lighting fixture may exceed 150 W
incandescent (or equivalent)
Variance No 471 and Coastal Permit No. 165
14. The structure shall comply with the following setbacks:
Front 67" Sides: 3'1" West and 20'11" East Rear: 21'0"
The applicant shall provide certification of the front and westerly side setbacks at the
time, of foundation form inspection by the Building and Safety Division.
15. The maximum height of the residence shall not exceed 15 80' (as measured from
the average elevation at the 20 -foot front -yard setback line (96.25`)) and 26 25` (as
measured from the finished grade adjacent to the lowest foundation (85 80')) to the
highest point of the structure, including roofing materials The maximum ndgeline
elevation shall be 112.05'. Ridge height certification shall be required prior to
building permit final inspection.
16. The maximum structure size permitted by this approval is 3,155 square feet,
including the 2 -car garage. Structure size certification shall be required prior to
building permit final inspection.
17 The project shall maintain a minimum of 53 8% open -space coverage.
18. The project shall provide a 2 -car garage with minimum interior dimensions of 18'0"
wide and 20'0" deep.
19. The maximum height of the fence along the front of the house shall be 7.00' for the
main portion of the fence, 8.46' for the two trellis structures on either side of the
gate, and 10 12' for the trellis over the gate.
Gradinq Permit No 2192
20 The grading approved by this permit consists of thirty-six cubic yards (36 yd 3) of cut
and forty cubic yards (40 yd 3) of fill Two downslope retaining walls are permitted.
P C Resolution No 2000-33
Page 11 of 12
21 The maximum permitted height of the downslope retaining wall adjacent to the entry
to the house is 4 75', plus any safety railing to meet the requirements of the Building
and Safety Division The material of the safety railing shall be 80 -percent open for
the passage of light and/or air.
22 The maximum permitted height of the downslope retaining wall adjacent to the lower
terrace is 6.50', plus any safety railing to meet the requirements of the Building and
Safety Division. The material of the safety railing shall be 80 -percent open for the
passage of light and/or air.
M \Projects\VAR 471—CP 165—GR 2192 (Beal)\PC Resolution 2000-33 doc
P.C. Resolution No. 2000-33
Page 12 of 12