Loading...
CC RES 2016-022 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'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, or 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 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) to the Planning Commission 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, on April 12, 2016 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 the Planning Commission denied Mr. Sturgeon's appeal and upheld the Director's Decision to approve the"unsubstantial amendment,"thereby allowing the after-the-fact 4'-0"tall retaining wall to remain (P.C. Resolution No. 2016-06); and, WHEREAS, on April 27, 2016, a timely appeal was filed by Mr. Sturgeon (Appellant) to the City Council continuing to express concerns with the structural integrity of the wall and 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. Additionally, Mr. Sturgeon noted that he would like a better understanding of what body is the appropriate body to appeal the engineering components of the Applicant's project; and, WHEREAS, on May 12, 2016, pursuant to Section 17.80.090, Staff mailed notices for a City Council 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 May 12, 2016; and, WHEREAS, on June 6, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council hereby denies an appeal and upholds the Planning Commission'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 Resolution No.2016-22 Page 2 of 4 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, Planning Commission's or City Council'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 City Council 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 Development Director, and requiring more detailed plans would not have altered the Director's determination to approve the new retaining wall, or the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal of the unsubstantial amendment. 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 City Council 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 or Building Division, according to the City's "Retaining Wall Building permit Requirements," and is permitted "by- right." Section 3: The City Council finds that although the Appellant wishes for the Applicant to construct a retaining wall taller than 4'-0" in height, there is no public health or safety issue with the existing wall that would require a taller wall. The applicant has submitted an "As-Built" plan that was signed, stamped and certified by a registered professional engineer(A.B. Menor, Lic. No. C25839), certifying that the 4'-0"tall retaining wall, including the footing/foundation,was constructed as noted on the"As-Built" plan.Additionally, in response to questions posed by the Appellant's geotechnical engineer(David T. Hamilton of Hamilton&Associates),the Applicant's registered geologist from Associated Soils Engineering(John R.Whitney No. 1929)submitted a written response which was accepted by the City on May 2, 2016. The applicant's consulting geologist stated that all backfill was adequately compacted, all soil run-off and surface drainage can be controlled through regular landscaping practices, there were no soil erosion concerns observed, and the slope beyond the retaining wall is stable. Section 4: The City Council finds that Development Code protects the aesthetic and visual relationship of retaining walls that are constructed throughout the City, and is the section of the Municipal Code that is appealable to the Planning Commission and City Council, as it relates to zoning and land use. The City Council finds that the Appellant does not take issue or have concerns with the 4'-0"tall retaining wall from an aesthetic perspective, but instead from an engineering and geotechnical perspective, which are related to the technical codes of the California Building Code enforced by the City's Building Official. Pursuant to Section 15.18.030 of the City's Municipal Code, a decision or determination rendered by the Building Official Resolution No.2016-22 Page 3 of 4 regarding the technical codes of the California Building Code are appealable to the International Code Council (ICC), and that a request in writing to the Building Official that an interpretation from the ICC be sought is the proper procedure for the Appellant's concerns. Section 4: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's decision, and thereby approving an "unsubstantial amendment" for 4'-0" tall retaining wall located at 5448 Bayridge Road (Planning Case No. ZON2011-00281). PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June 2016. Mayo Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City or Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2016-22 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 6, 2016. CALe-4.- Are4-‘L. City Clerk Resolution No.2016-22 Page 4 of 4