PC RES 2003-0271
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CASE NO. ZON2002-00388, A
HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT AND GRADING PERMIT FOR A 3,592
SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE,
A 196 SQUARE FOOT POOL CABANA, AND A TOTAL OF 315 CUBIC
YARDS OF GRADING, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6512 NANCY
ROAD.
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2002, the applicant Raul Podesta representing property
owners Joe and Cristina Rich, submitted Case No ZON2002-00388, a Height Variation
application for a 3,788 square foot two-story addition at the rear of the existing 3 -story
residence, and,
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2002, the application was deemed incomplete pending
the submittal of additional information; and,
WHEREAS, upon submittal of the additional information, submittal of a Variance
application and a Grading Permit application, and the verification of the temporary
silhouette, the applications were deemed complete by Staff on February 21, 2003, 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 Case No ZON2002-00388 would have a
significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to
be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) since the project involves an
addition to an existing residence, and,
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2003, the Planning Commission continued the item to the
April 22, 2003 Planning Commission, at the applicant's request, and,
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2003, the Planning Commission continued the item to the
May 13, 2003 Planning Commission, at the applicant's request, and,
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2003, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence, and at said meeting, the Planning Commission denied the Variance
application associated with Case No. ZON2002-00388 and continued the Height Variation
and Grading Permit applications to the .lune 10, 2003 Planning Commission meeting; and,
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution
No 2003-19, formalizing the denial of the Variance application associated with Case No.
ZON2002-00388; and,
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2003, the applicant submitted a revised project that does
not require a Variance application, and proposes additional grading to raise the grade
elevation under the footprint of the addition; and,
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2003, the Planning Commission conducted the continued
public hearing for the revised project
0
ON=
Section 1: The applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation
process established by the City by obtaining acknowledgement signatures from 81 25% of
the property owners within 100 -feet of the subject property and 45 2% of the property
owners within 500 -feet of the subject property, who have reviewed the plans prior to filing
the application with the City
Section 2: The proposed two-story addition does not significantly impair a view
from public property which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific
Plan as a City -designated viewing area because there are no such areas that overlook the
subject property
Section 3: The property is not located on a ridge and promontory as there are
other parcels with varying pad elevations that were terraced when initially constructed
Section 4: The proposed two-story addition is designed and situated in a manner
as to minimize impairment of a view since there are no views in the direction of, or over the
subject property The properties on either side are not oriented towards the subject
property, the parcels directly across the street from the subject property do not contain a
view in the direction of the subject property due to the topography and development of the
area, and the properties to the rear are located downslope of the subject property and do
not contain views in the direction of the subject property.
Section 5: There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting
the application since the view analysis has determined that the project will not result in
significant view impairment. Further, due to the topography and development of the area,
the residences in the area do not contain views in the direction of the subject property.
Section 6: The proposed two-story addition, when considered exclusive of foliage,
will not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel, due primarily to
the orientation and topography of the lots within the neighborhood.
Section 7: The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements in
that all the development standards of the RS -3 Zoning District are met and the minimum
setback requirements are exceeded
P.0 Resolution No 2003-27
Page 2
kxck_,,Ay
Section 8: The addition and resulting appearance will not significantly change the
appearance of the immediate neighborhood and the residence will be compatible with the
immediate neighborhood The architectural style, roofing material, exterior finishes,
number of stories and building materials will be consistent with other homes in the
neighborhood. Furthermore, the additional size of the residence will not be apparent since
it will be concentrated at the rear of the existing residence, and will therefore not appear
bulky or massive
Section 9: The proposed structure does not create an unreasonable infringement
on the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences because the addition will be located
over 100 -feet from the adjacent properties to the rear, and windows have been strategically
placed at a point along the side fagades so that they are not aligned with the windows of
the neighboring structures
Section 10: The grading is not excessive since the grading is being conducted in
direct relation to the residential structure The grading will be conducted under the
proposed addition to ensure that the height of the structure does not increase, the grading
is being conducted in the crawl space of the existing building and will not be visible, and
grading will fill the existing spa area of the lot
Section 11: The grading will prepare the area where the two-story addition is
proposed, and as concluded in the Height Variation analysis, the addition will not result in
significant view impairment.
Section 12: The majority of the proposed grading will prepare the site for
construction of the two-story addition at the rear of the residence, which is a manufactured
area that was created during construction of the residence. The crawl space is not visible,
so there is no concern with the finish contours; while the deck area is currently flat, and will
be reduced by 3 -feet to accommodate the addition, so there is also no concern with the
finish contours. The area at the pool cabana is already flat, as it is a raised planter area
where no natural contours exist. Lastly, the jacuzzi area will be filled and will follow the
subtle slope that exists at the rear of the property.
Section 13: The subject property does not maintain natural topographic features,
as it is a lot that was graded when the site was developed in the 1930's Further, the
majority of the grading to be conducted will be to accommodate a building atop the area,
while the grading at the jacuzzi area will result in fill that follows the subtle slope that exists
at the rear of the property
Section 14: The proposed residence conforms to the Development Code's grading
standards since the depth of cut and fill will not exceed 5 -feet, and no grading is proposed
on extreme slope areas nor on slopes exceeding fifty (50%) percent gradient and retaining
walls will be less than 5 -feet in height.
Section 15: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Reports, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning
P C Resolution No. 2003-27
Page 3
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Case No. ZON2002-
00388 for a Height Variation and Grading Permit, thereby allowing a 3,592 square foot two-
story addition to an existing residence, a 196 square foot pool cabana, and a total of 315
cubic yards of grading, 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.
Section 11: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.80 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 July 9, 2003.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of June 2003, by the following vote*
AYES Cote, Duran Reed, Tomblin
NOES' Mueller, Long
ABSTENTIONS. Cartwright
ABSENT. Lyon
J el R 'as, AE
Di ect r of PI�nt;
g, Building and
Co nforcand, Secretary
to the Planning Commission
Tom Long
Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2003-27
Page—4
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval
Case No. ZON2002-00388
(Height Variation & Grading Permit)
Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or
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 approval Failure to
provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval
shall render this approval null and void.
2 The approval shall become null and void after one year from the date of approval unless
the approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the "plan
check" review process.
3 Approval is for a 3,592 square foot two-story addition to an existing residence, a 196
square foot pool cabana, and a total of 315 cubic yards of grading Specifically, The
addition to the ground level includes 208 cubic yards of grading to excavate the crawl
space for conversion to habitable space and excavate the deck area to the rear of the
residence to accommodate a game room, and a new two -car garage Thus, a total of
1,196 square feet of habitable space will be converted and added, and a new 686
square foot garage will be added to the ground level. The addition to the second level
includes 1,710 square feet of additional habitable space, and will include a remodel of
the existing floor plan. There are no additions proposed to the third level, but a new 121
square foot roof deck is proposed. In addition to the 208 cubic yards of grading
mentioned above, the applicant proposes 20 cubic yards of grading to re -contour the
driveway, 30 yards to fill the existing jacuzzi at the rear of the property, and 57 cubic
yards of grading to accommodate a new 196 square foot cabana adjacent to the pool at
the rear of the property. Therefore, including the cabana, the resulting structure size
will be 6,802 square feet.
4 The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained
Front yard: 20'-0" minimum (proposed. no change to existing)
Side yard: 6-0" minimum for the replaced direct -access garage on the north
side and for the addition on the south side. 25 -foot minimum for the new
indirect access garage on the north side.
Rear yard: 15-0" minimum (proposed: ±100 -feet)
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A
FRONT SETBACK CERTIFICATION FOR THE EASTERLY 15 -FEET OF THE
GARAGE AND SECOND FLOOR IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED LAND
SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO POURING OF FOOTINGS FOR THE
GARAGE AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER FRAMING OF THE SECOND STORY.
P.C. Resolution No 2003-27
Page 5
5 The new pool cabana at the rear of the property shall maintain a minimum 5 -foot side
yard setback and a minimum 15 -foot rear yard setback.
6. A 25 -foot turnaround area in front of the garage entrance shall be maintained.
7 The lowest finish grade elevation for the addition shall be 623.64', which is the lowest
finish grade elevation of the existing residence. SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND
APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND PLANNING STAFF, AN AS -BUILT
GRADING PLAN STAMPED BY A CIVIL ENGINEER IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO
FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT.
8. The maximum overall height of the structure is limited to 30.66 -feet, as measured from
highest ridgeline of the residence (654.3') to lowest finish grade elevation (623.64').
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A RIDGE
HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR
ENGINEER PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT.
9 The maximum ridgeline elevation of the new two-story addition shall be limited to
649 89'.
10 The maximum structure size of the residence, including garage, shall be limited to a
total area of 6,606 square feet. Specifically, the first floor will contain 2,699 square feet
(including garage), and the second floor will contain 983 square feet SUBJECT TO
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A STRUCTURE SIZE
CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR, ENGINEER OR
ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY AFTER FRAMING OF STRUCTURE.
11 The maximum size of the pool cabana shall be limited to 196 square feet.
12 The maximum height of the pool cabana is limited to 12 -feet, as measured from
adjacent grade to highest ridgeline
13. Future additions on the property shall be subject to Neighborhood Compatibility
14.A minimum of three enclosed garage spaces shall be maintained, with each space
being individually accessed and each maintaining a minimum unobstructed dimension
of 9 -feet -wide by 20 -feet -deep by 7 -feet -vertical clearance.
15. The maximum slope of the driveway shall be limited to 20%.
16. The minimum unobstructed width of the driveway shall be 10 -feet.
17 Construction of the project shall substantially conform to the plans stamped as
approved by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval.
P.C. Resolution No. 2003-27
Mmf
Awl")
18. Due to the subject property's location in the RS -3 zoning district, a maximum of forty-
five (45%) percent lot coverage shall be allowed on the lot (proposed: 40%).
19. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in
conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.
20. All necessary permits required by the Public Works Department shall be obtained for all
work including but not limited to the driveway approach, portion of the driveway, etc.
that encroach into the public nght-of-way
21. 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 on legal holidays
22. The construction site and all adjacent private and public property 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,
23 The maximum eave projection allowed into the required setback areas shall not exceed
6 -inches for each 1 -foot of required setback.
24. The construction site shall be temporarily enclosed with a six (6-0") foot high chain-link
fence during the length of construction of the residential structure
25 The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor
modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications shall
achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and
conditions.
P.C. Resolution No. 2003-27
Page 7