PC RES 2016-006 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING AN APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE
AN "UNSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT" TO ALLOW A 4'-0"
TALL RETAINING WALL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5448 BAYRIDGE ROAD
(CASE NO ZON2011-00281).
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution
No. 2013-04 conditionally approving the construction of a new second story addition to an
existing one-story residence. The Commission-approved project allowed the construction of new
retaining walls along the west side property line and within the rear yard. However, the
Commission's approval did not include the construction of a retaining wall (a wall retaining 3'-0"
or more of earth)within the 20'-0"front yard setback. Instead,the approved project included the
construction of a garden wall (a wall which retains less than 3'-0" of earth)that is exempt from a
planning permit; and,
WHEREAS, instead of constructing a "garden wall" less than 3'-0" in height, the
Applicant(Mr. and Mrs. Koch) constructed a 4'-0"tall retaining wall within the front yard setback
in order to stabilize the neighbor's property (Rollin Sturgeon, 5456 Bayridge Road -Appellant)
and transitional slope that separates the two properties; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), under Article 19, Section 15301(minor alterations
of topographical features) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA.
Specifically, the project includes the approval of a 4'-0" tall retaining wall along the west side
yard property line, within the 20'-0" front yard setback on a property that is currently developed
with a single-family residence. This project has been determined not to have a significant impact
on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.78.040(A), "an amendment, which proposes a
substantive revision to[a]plan or project approved by an application that has been granted in
accordance with this title, may be initiated by the property owner, at any time it is deemed
necessary or desirable, upon petition to the director..."and on January 27, 2016,the Community
Development Director determined that the addition of a 4'-0" tall retaining wall within the 20'-0"
front yard setback of the Applicant's property would not be a substantive change to the original
project approved by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2013, nor necessitate the need
for Planning Commission review. The reasons for this are:
• The Development Code permits retaining walls between 3'-0" and 5'-0" in height when
located adjacent to a driveway (RPVMC Section 17.76.040(E)(9)(e)(iv);
• The 4'-0" tall retaining wall would essentially be an extension of the Commission-
approved retaining wall along the same property line; and,
• A 4'-0" tall retaining wall is typically a Director-level approval that does not necessitate
Planning Commission review.
WHEREAS, Given that the neighbor located at 5456 Bayridge Dr. noted concerns with
deviating from the Development Code's "by-right" grading standards throughout the public
01203.0005/293288.1
hearing process, as well as the building process, Staff informed the neighbor of the Director-
approved "unsubstantial amendment" and was notified that the Director's decision could be
appealed to the Planning Commission by February 11, 2016; and,
WHEREAS, a timely appeal was filed by Mr. Sturgeon (Appellant) expressing concerns
with the structural integrity of the wall and the slope supported by the wall, as well as the
contents of the plans submitted by the applicant from which the Director made the unsubstantial
determination; and,
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2016, Staff mailed notices for a Planning Commission appeal
hearing to 108 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, providing a
15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was
published in the Peninsula News on March 24, 2016; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 12,
2016, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence; and,
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 denies an appeal and upholds the
Community Development Director's determination that the construction of a 4'-0" tall retaining
wall within the 20'-0"front yard setback is an unsubstantial amendment to the February 12, 2013
Planning Commission's original approval. The Applicant's request to amend the Planning
Commission's original approval from February 12, 2013 is not a substantive change to the
original approval and does not necessitate a need for Planning Commission review. This is due
to the fact that the Development Code permits retaining walls between 3'-0" and 5'-0" in height
when located adjacent to a driveway, a retaining wall was already approved by the Planning
Commission along the same property line, the 4'-0" tall retaining wall would essentially be an
extension of the existing retaining wall, and a 4'-0" tall retaining wall is typically a Director-level
approval that does not necessitate Planning Commission review. Furthermore,the points raised
in the appeal letter pertain to the structural integrity of the retaining wall and the accuracy of the
information depicted on the engineering plans accepted by the City's Building Official. These
points of the appeal are not subject to the Planning Department's or the Planning Commission's
purview, but rather, the purview of the City's Building and Safety Division because they relate to
the engineering component of the project.
Section 2: The Planning Commission finds that the `as-built' plans submitted to the
City on January 26, 2016, which depict the location and heights of the 4'-0" tall retaining wall
within the 20'-0" front yard setback, when considered in conjunction with the Applicant's full
permit materials, include sufficient information upon which the Community Development Director
could base a decision to approve an unsubstantial amendment to the Planning Commission's
February 12, 2016 original approval. There is no requirement to have the architect of the original
plan sign the`as-built' plan. The applicant submitted a revised `as-built' plan on March 28, 2016
with a wet-stamp, date and signature block for the Civil Engineer certifying the plan. It is
acceptable to waive the requirement to submit a set of detailed grading plans, as the `as-built'
plans supplemented the originally approved plans and are sufficient to make a determination
that the 4'-0" tall retaining wall within the front yard setback is permissible by the Community
01203.0005/293288.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2016-06
Page 2
plans supplemented the originally approved plans and are sufficient to make a determination
that the 4'-0" tall retaining wall within the front yard setback is permissible by the Community
Development Director, and requiring more detailed plans would not have altered the Director's
determination to approve the new retaining wall. Furthermore, the new 4'-0"tall retaining wall is
required to be approved by the Building and Safety Division to ensure that the wall was
constructed pursuant to the provisions California Building Code. Lastly, the Planning
Commission determines that the short, stacked wall between the front property line and the new
4'-0"tall retaining wall does not require a permit from the Planning Division, and is permitted"by-
right."
Section 3: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.80.070 of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, setting forth the
grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant, and accompanied by
the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) calendar days following April 12, 2016, the
date of the Planning Commission's final action.
Section 4: 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 denies the appeal and upholds the
Director's decision, and thereby approving an "unsubstantial amendment" (Planning Case No.
ZON2011-00281) for 4'-0" tall retaining wall located at 5448 Bayridge Road.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of April 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank
and Chairman Tomblin
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
RECUSALS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Bradley
(:::::11----
David L. Tomblin
AJ/# Chairman
Terry Rot i► e
Interim ommunity I- elopment Director
Secretary to the Planning Commission
01203.0005/293288.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2016-06
Page 3