CC SR 20160606 02 - PC Appeal Denial 5448 Bayridge Road1iCITY OF L& RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: June 6, 2016
Subject: Consideration and possible action to deny an appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Director's approval
of an "unsubstantial amendment."
Subject Property: 5448 Bayridge Road
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
2. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Dyda
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2016-_, thereby
denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision to uphold
the Community Development 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. ZON2009-00108). (Mikhail)
4. Council Questions of Staff (factual only, no opinions):
5. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Dyda
6. Public Testimony:
Appellant: Rollin Sturgeon
Applicant: Jarrod Koch
A. Mayor Dyda invites the Appellant to speak, to be followed by speakers in
favor of the appeal.
B. Mayor Dyda invites Applicant to speak, to be followed by speakers
opposed to the appeal.
7. Council Questions of speakers — (factual only):
8. Rebuttal: Mayor Dyda invites brief rebuttals by Appellant and Applicant
9. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Dyda
10. Council Deliberation: Questions of staff in response to testimony
11. Council Action:
1
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: 06/06/2016
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to deny an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision to uphold the Director's approval of an "unsubstantial amendment."
Quasi -Judicial Decision
This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm
whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to support approval of the
Planning Commission's decision. The specific findings of fact are listed in Sections
1 and 2 of P.C. Resolution No. 2016-06 (Attachment H).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-, thereby denying an appeal and upholding the
Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Community Development
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. ZON2009-00108).
FISCAL IMPACT: The appellant has paid the applicable appeal fees, as established by
Resolution of the City Council. If the applicant is successful in the appeal, and the City
Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, the applicant
will receive a full refund of their appeal fee. Thus, all costs associated with the processing
of the appeal will come from the City's General Fund.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Leza Mikhail, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development'
f.
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager.! .r"II
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2016-_ — (page A-1)
B. Appeal Letter to City Council from Rollin Sturgeon, dated April 27, 2016 —
(page B-1)
C. Original P.C. Approved Plan Excerpt — (page C-1)
D. `As -Built' Plans, submitted March 28, 2016 — (page D-1)
E. Engineering comments from Hamilton & Associates — (page E-1)
2
F. Engineering response to comments from Associated Soils Engineering –
(page F-1)
G. City's Retaining Wall Building Permit Requirements – (page G-1)
H. P.C. Resolution No. 2016-06 – ( page H-1)
I. April 12, 2016, P.C. Meeting Minutes Excerpt – (page 1-1)
J. P.C. Staff Report (Appeal of Director's Unsubstantial Amendment), dated
April 12, 2016, excluding attachments – (page J-1)
K. Appeal Letter to Planning Commission, submitted February 11, 2016
(page K-1)
L. Supplemental Letter from Appellant, submitted March 29, 2016 – (page
L-1)
M. Director's Unsubstantial Amendment, dated January 27, 2016 – (page
M-1)
N. P.C. Resolution No. 2013-04 and Original Staff Report and attachments,
dated February 12, 2013 – (page N-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On February 12, 2013, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the
construction of a new single-family residence and related site grading (Attachment N).
As part of the Commission -approved project, a garden wall (less than 3'-0" in height)
was depicted on the approved plans, located along the westerly side property line,
within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area. During construction, the property owner
increased the height of the retaining wall by one foot—without City approval—to
improve the stability of the slope. On January 27, 2016, the then -Director approved an
"unsubstantial amendment" to allow the after -the -fact 4 -foot tall retaining wall, located
within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area of the property (Attachment M).2 As
discussed in further detail below, questions about the structural integrity of the 4 -foot tall
retaining wall and slope stability are essentially the purposes of this appeal.
The Appellant, Mr. Rollin Sturgeon, challenged the then -Director's decision by filing an
appeal to the Planning Commission on February 11, 2016. On April 12, 2016, the
Planning Commission considered the Appellant's appeal and adopted P.C. Resolution
No. 2016-06, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision
(Attachment H). For a full discussion of the project history, please refer to the attached
April 12, 2016 P.C. Staff Report (Attachment J). On April 27, 2016, Mr. Sturgeon then
filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council (Attachment
B).
By raising the height of the approved garden wall to more than three feet, it became a retaining
wall (as defined in the Development Code) after the fact.
2 The Director's decision to approve an unsubstantial amendment was based on Section
17.78.040(A) of the Development Code, which states that "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..."
3
On May 12, 2016, Staff mailed public notices for the 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 hearing
notice was published in the Peninsula News on May 12, 2016.
Planning Commission's Decision:
At its April 12th meeting, the Planning Commission considered the merits of the
Appellant's appeal, which was based on the following points:
1. The after -the -fact 4' -tall retaining wall is structurally inadequate;
2. The contents of the plans submitted by the applicant upon which the Director
made a determination to approve the 4' -tall retaining wall are incorrect and
inadequate;
3. The 4' -tall retaining wall would not adequately support the slope and building
pad; and,
4. The interlocking block wall that extends beyond the 4' -tall retaining wall, toward
the front property line, requires a separate permit from the Planning Division.
In addition to the analysis presented in the Staff report, the Planning Commission heard
testimony from Staff, the applicant, the appellant and the City's Building Official. The
Planning Commission decision to uphold the Director's decision was based on the
following facts, as memorialized in P.C. Resolution No. 2016-06 and reflected in the
April 12th PC Minutes (Attachment 1):
• The Development Code permits retaining walls between 3'-0" and 5-0" in height
when located adjacent to a driveway;
• The Planning Commission previously approved a plan that included a garden
wall less than 3'-0" in height located within the 20'-0" front yard setback;
• The after -the -fact 4'-0" tall retaining wall is essentially an extension of the existing
retaining wall located outside of the 20'-0" front yard setback, along the westerly
side property line;
• The increased height of the retaining wall was intended to enhance the stability
of the slope between the two properties;
• A 4'-0" tall retaining wall is typically a Director -level approval that does not
necessitate Planning Commission review;
• The plans reviewed by the Director included sufficient information and would not
have altered the City's decision to allow the wall height to be increased to 4 feet
because it enhanced the structural stability of the slope;
• It is acceptable to waive the requirement to submit a set of detailed grading plans
since the "As -Built' plans supplemented the originally -approved plans and are
sufficient to make a determination that the approval of the 4' -tall retaining wall is
permissible by the Director;
• The structural integrity of the retaining wall, soil stability behind the retaining wall
and the accuracy of the information depicted on the `As -Built' plans stamped by
El
an engineer 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; and,
• The interlocking stacked block wall between the front property line and the new
4' -tall retaining wall is considered a garden wall (less than 3'-0" in height) that is
permitted "by right" and does not requiring Planning approval.
City Council Appeal
The discussion below focuses on the issues raised in the Appellant's most -recent
appeal letter (Attachment B). It should be noted, however, that many of these points
continue to 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 relate to the engineering component of a project and its compliance with
the California Building Code. The appeal issues (in some cases combined and
summarized) are shown in bold below, followed by Staff's responses.
Appellant's Issue No. 1: The Appellant wants a taller retaining wall to stabilize his
property that was destabilized when the Applicant conducted unpermitted
grading, which left an unsupported 6%' -tall vertical cut adjacent to the Appellant's
property line.
During the construction process, the Applicant constructed an after -the -fact 4' -tall
retaining wall within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area, with backfill and a transitional
slope behind the new retaining wall, where a garden wall (less than 3'-0" in height) was
originally depicted on the approved plans. The Applicant installed the 4'-0" retaining wall
to support the slope and the 6'/2' -tall vertical cut between the two properties, which the
Appellant does not believe is adequate in height. In an effort to demonstrate that the
retaining wall is inadequate, the Appellant hired an engineer (Hamilton & Associates)
who submitted written comments and questions pertaining to the construction and
structural stability of the retaining wall, as well as the compaction behind the retaining
wall Attachment E). On May 2, 2016, the Applicant submitted a response to the
Hamilton & Associates report from their consulting geotechnical engineer (Associated
Soils Engineering, Inc.), stating 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 (Attachment F). The City has accepted this response and is now ready to finalize
the Building Permit once the appeals in this matter are exhausted.
Appellant's Issue No. 2: The retaining wall located along the westerly side
property line, outside of the 20 -foot front -yard setback, was designed and
constructed with a footing that extends towards the interior of the applicant's
property, but the after -the -fact 4 -foot -tall retaining wall, within the 20 -foot front -
yard setback, was constructed with the footing turned towards the appellant's
property. The footing for the retaining wall within the 20 -foot front setback is not
acceptable.
5
The construction of the 4' -tall retaining wall located within the 20'-0" front -yard setback,
including the footing/foundation of the wall, was inspected by the City's Building
Inspector. According to the City's Inspector, the retaining wall was constructed as
shown in the "As -Built" plan that was submitted to the City (Attachment D). The City's
Building Official has opined that the design of this retaining wall is acceptable for the
type of slope and surcharge behind the slope. Furthermore, a registered professional
engineer signed and stamped the "As -Built" plan, certifying the construction and design
of the wall.
Appellant's Issue No. 3: There is a steep slope running from the retaining wall to
sidewalk, where a stacked interlocking block wall was constructed without City
approvals.
The stacked interlocking block wall that extends between the 4'-0" tall retaining wall and
the sidewalk was installed by the Applicant to further stabilize the transitional slope at
the front of the property. There are two separate codes that apply to this type of wall:
1) The City's Development Code for the Planning Division entitlements, and
2) The California Building Code (CBC) for the Building Division's building permits.
The City's Development Code defines a wall that is less than 3'-0" in height to be a "by -
right" garden wall that is exempt from the Planning Department's review. Additionally,
the CBC and City's "Retaining Wall Building Permit Requirements" (Attachment G)
exempt certain retaining walls from requiring a building permit when the retaining wall
does not exceed 4'-0" in height, as measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of
the wall. Based upon multiple field inspections Staff, determined that the stacked
interlocking block wall is a "by -right" garden wall that is exempt from permits from either
Division.
Appellant's Issue No. 4: If the engineering components of the retaining wall are
not subject to review by the Planning Commission or the City Council, why not,
and who would review appeals of building permits or structural decisions related
to retaining walls?
Staff has explained to the Appellant on numerous occasions that his issues are related
to the engineering components of the project, and not the aesthetic components that the
Planning Division typically reviews. The City's Development Code protects the aesthetic
relationship of retaining walls being constructed throughout the City's neighborhoods,
and is that section of the Code that is appealable to the Planning Commission and City
Council. The Appellant has noted that he does not take issue with the aesthetics of the
4' -tall retaining wall, but rather its structural integrity. Pursuant to Section 15.18.030 of
the City's Municipal Code, determinations related to the technical codes of the CBC and
determinations made by the City's Building Official are appealable to the International
Code Council (ICC). If the Appellant disagrees with the Building Official's interpretation
of the technical codes (e.g., when a building permit is required), the Appellant can
on
submit a written request to the Building Official seeking an interpretation from the ICC.
To date, the Building Official has not received such a request from the Appellant.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Timing of the Open Building Permit
The Building Permit for the project (Case No. BLD2013-00816), which includes the
subject 4' -tall retaining wall, has not been finalized by the City because of the
unresolved appeal proceedings, and is set to expire on July 10, 2016. Given this, the
Building Official and Staff have diligently worked with the Applicant and Appellant to
address the issues brought forward by both parties. Staff believes that there are no
outstanding issues of concern that would prevent the building permit from being
finalized once the appeal process has been exhausted.
Planning Commission Chairman
Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 24, the Planning Commission Chairman Tomblin will
be attending tonight's meeting in event the Council has any questions pertaining to the
Commission's decisions in this matter.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the forgoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt
Resolution No. 2016-, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Planning
Commission's decision to approve an "unsubstantial amendment" to Case No.
ZON2009-00108 to allow a 4' -tall retaining wall to remain within the front yard of the
subject property.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternative is available for
consideration by the City Council:
Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff
and/or the Applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue
the public hearing to a date certain.
7
Draft Resolution 2016 -
(City Council Denial of Appeal)
A-1
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
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
A-2
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
does not necessitate Planning Commission review. Furthermore, the points raised in the appeal
A-3
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
regarding the technical codes of the California Building Code are appealable to the International
WE
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 6t" day of June 2016, by the following vote:
Mayor
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-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 6, 2016.
City Clerk
A-5
Appeal Letter to City Council
(from Rollin Sturgeon —dated April 27, 2016)
April 27, 2016
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Att: City Council
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT
Subject: Denial of appeal of approval of plans for remodel at
5448 Bayridge Rd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Rollin Sturgeon
5456 Bayridge Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes
CA 90275
310 378-4345
The denial of the appeal should be overturned for it is totally unrelated to the appeal. "The
Planning Commission hereby denies an appeal and upholds Community Development Direction's
determination that the construction of a 4' — 0" tall retaining wall with -in the 20' — 0" front yard
setback is an unsubstantial amendment." Nowhere in the appeal is there reference to a 4' — 0"
retaining wall or unsubstantial and has zero relevance to the appeal. (See my appeal of 2-10-16
addressed to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission and Planning Department.)
I want a retaining wall to stabilize my property that was destabilized when Koch's G.C., without
a permit, graded back to their west property line leaving an unsupported 6 '/2' high vertical cut.
To stabilize the property, the owner has presented plans, that he drew, titled "As Built for 5448
Bayridge Rd." They are not signed or dated and as such, are not acceptable though Joel Rojas did
accept them. The plans do not show the unauthorized grading to the property line that has
destabilized my property. This grading extends from behind the added retaining wall to the
sidewalk.
The existing west side property line grading is supported engineered retaining walls with the
footing extended out from the property line. The added retaining wall has the footing turned
inward with loose fill on top to retain the property line vertical cut. If the back -fill was
compacted it still would not retain my property for the sides of the back -fill are tapered leaving
my property un -retained.
The civil engineer has stamped a faulty dwg that does not show the unsupported grading to the
property line and therefore is not applicable to existing grading.
The "As Built for 5448 Bayridge Rd." dwg front view shows a 33% slope running from the
retaining wall to the sidewalk. Instead there is a stack -block wall. Compliance with code cannot
be verified for there is no dwg of the wall. Code exempts wall 3' high (if shown on a dwg) to be
exempt from a building permit unless there is a surcharge. Since there is a surcharge it is not
exempt. (See photo.) The Planning Commission was misled when a member of the Planning
Department stated this, "unless there is a surcharge," is not factual.
Among the many failings in the "As Built" dwg are found: The section view shows a 100% slope
where a 35% max slope is allowed. "Section view shall designate cut and fill with different
markings." The dwg has only a single marking. "The amount of cut and fill, at each location,
shall be shown in cubic yards." The dwg shows none. (See Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Code of
Ordinance.)
In the section view the bottom of the wall is shown completely above grade. In the top view
grade is at 97.14 which puts it .93 feet above the bottom of the wall shown at 96.21. This is not
possible.
In the top view the top of the existing wall is at 102.46 and the bottom of the wall is at 100.29,
which makes the wall 2.17' high when it is closer to 5' high.
In the front view the surcharge above the wall is now shown.
The views are to different scales and none are shown.
The dims of the dwg can only be read with a magnifying glass.
The reason why the owner drew the plans rather than his architect is because he would have
shown a property line retaining wall as he did for the balance of the west side property line. This
is necessary to stabilize my property which was destabilized by the unpermitted grading.
My appeal was directed to the next highest level body the city Planning Commission that now
states it is not in their purview because it relates to engineering components of the project. If not
in its purview why not? What then is the next highest level body to which I may appeal a
Planning Department's finding?
Sincerely,
Rollin Sturgeon
Page 2
r b \\4
A
i
•t C , Vl �'s D eta` -- cS
r
or
til . �„L' `�^xc ,�ca,'♦�cx ' � -
p3 `: 4.y1� �u'-,i T3' ,y +a-K.•zl�� �.9e,''•., `
T�� ���.� 4 .g _ �.' "3, `�' .:� �S.SL. �' �JiRc���a�,^.�i2,. � `�a¢dl• Zr'�, �0.� _x -
` .. � - '. ,4 • T - ,ice..- "♦. � f � ��y�+�'. �'+ -
-�-
����i-����r� '•�''y _.`�� _'b,a.►,�'iaFl� _•a' �� a:� .�� '� Wit'.-•��;.
�'`�` -tea ^� .-.r ,�,,',��.� `-ti � �"t •>. Via'-- -_ �'" '' -" ..,�� '�" .,.. �� b'#.' ^ i �'°�i4„
�r d� "�-i ( �1. � ♦- _ 'Iyt � 1' �-•y �i _ , . ti� ..r Y l � ra" _ `mac
'•- _ 7`c5 �'� -4f -mss �_ _ ` �� �a�� b� ..k
? r
_
_%' ., • _-�»..a� ..-_ �_ : -� � - _ . --- .. _ .�`� a -:� _ � _-.
� R
f
a
J
low -
OR _ -
-" -� €
Original P.C. Approved Plan Excerpt
(from February 12, 2013)
C-1
Excerpt of Originally Approved Plan
..... .... ..........
G-19den Wall Section
C-2
F4.
G-19den Wall Section
C-2
`As -Built' Plans
(submitted March 28, 2016)
D-1
Request for Minor Modification for 5448 Bayridge Road
Permit Number BLD2013-00816 Zoning Case Number: ZON2011 - 00281
AO.05 Changes: T,0. Wall
1. Wall Height 1 4
\fF EL NLIA6
From: 2' 11"
To: 4'
Rom— Aw
tet^ ate
2. B.O. Wall zwww
From: 97.14' 10
710
To: 96.21'
B.O. Viall
A0.05 Changes:
1. Wall Height
From: 2' 11"
To: 4'
2. B.O. Wall
From: 97.14'
To: 96.21'
8 Wall Section 2
A /
Signature Date
pw ,,,W
LU
IL
Engineering Comments
(Hamilton &Associates —for Sturgeon)
E-1
HAMILTON
MAR 3 1 2010
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
1641 &ofder Ayerwe Torrance, CA 90501 '? 310.618.2190 888.61$.2190 F 310.61 $.2191 :' hamiiivn a so f �tss.net
March 28, 2016
Project No. 15-1944-1
Mr. Rollin Sturgeon
5456 Bayridge Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Subject: Consultation Letter No. 2, Property line Retaining Wall, 5448/5456 Bayridge
Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, California.
Reference: Consultation Letter, Retaining Wall Backfill, 5448/5456 Bayridge Road,
Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated March 19, 2015.
Dear Mr. Sturgeon,
Per your request, Hamilton & Associates, Inc. is presenting this second letter for the
purpose of addressing your concerns with the neighbor's retaining wall recently
constructed in proximity to your easterly property line. We initially met during the
construction project a year ago in March 2015 in regards to your concern of proper
compaction of backfill, sub drains, and loose soil on your property (see attached letter).
As discussed with you, we reached out to the other parties to assist in resolving your
concern. It was our understanding that the owner and contractor agreed to review the
situation with all parties and if necessary to provide further compaction and testing at the
end of the project when the temporary construction fence was removed. Apparently, the
2015 issues in the attached letter were never addressed.
Per your request, we attended a site meeting on February 19, 2016 to review additional
concerns with regard to the recently constructed front approximately 20- to 30 -feet section
of retaining wall that extends along the property line to the sidewalk.
1. The front approximately 20- to 30 -feet of retaining wall construction was initially
temporarily excavated near vertical to the property line and was never returned
with compacted effort and testing.
2. Drainage issues have been created in the front approximately 20- to 30 -feet
section that will allow water flow and soil erosion from the Sturgeon property.
Drainage issues exist across the entire unsupported front section, however are
concentrated at the intersection/transition between the tall linear retaining
wall/planter retaining wall and the planter retaining wall/keystone wall.
3. Loose, non -compacted and unsupported soil exists between the two properties.
41f The stacked keystone retaining wall apparently covers the back drain outlet from
the concrete planter retaining wall.
Flarnihon A Az#eckoe:, Inc.
Geotechnical begin"ring ConLhuclf n fi!sf4ig u Impe,-, on Maieriah laborotor} E-2
Although not geotechnical issues and are outside this firm practice, it is noted that
additional concerns include 1) the apparent greater tha 35% grade created between the
two properties in portions of the front retaining wall an 2 levations shown on the planter
retaining wall plan prepared by Menor, Civil Engin(Ver, received by the Building
Department on January 21, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
H`1 TON & ASSOPIATESYINC/.
r
—..avid T. Hamilton, P.E., G.E.
President/Geotechnical Engineer
Distribution: (1) Addressee
Attachments: Hamilton & Associates, Inc. (2015), Consultation Letter, Retaining Wall
Backfill, 5448/5456 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated
March 19, 2015.
Sturgeon March 28, 2016
15-1944-1 M Page 2
HAMILTON E-3
& Associates
HAMILTON
3v A+)sociate?
16.1 Border Avenue u Torrance, CA 90501 T 3110.618.2190 688 618.2190 i 310.618.2191 /:! hamilaon�ssucia#es.3iet
March 19, 2015
Project No. 15-1944
Mr. Rollin Sturgeon
5456 Bayridge Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Subject: Consultation Letter, Retaining Wall Backfill, 5448/5456 Bayridge Road,
Rancho Palos Verdes, California.
Dear Mr. Sturgeon,
Per your request, Hamilton & Associates, Inc. is presenting this letter for the purpose of
addressing your concerns with the neighbor's retaining wall recently constructed in
proximity to your easterly property line. Based on our initial meeting on March 13, 2015
and following correspondence, it is understood that your concern is in regards to proper
compaction of backfill and loose soil observed by you. Photos, field compaction testing
report, and field drainage report were provided for review. We have yet to perform a site
visit.
As discussed with you, we reached out to the other parties to assist in resolving your
concern. We contacted the soil firm who prepared the field testing and observation
reports, Associated Soils (ASE), whom the undersigned was employed by 12 years ago.
ASE spoke with the owner and contractor and the owner and contractor agreed to
review the situation with all parties and provide further compaction and testing, if
necessary, at the end of the project when the temporary construction fence is removed.
The following was agreed in concept. Any loose retaining wall backfill soil or loose soil
spoils on your property will be improved and moisture conditioned and compacted by
the contractor, if necessary, and tested by both ASE and H&A, until passing results are
achieved by both parties.
Respectfully submitted,
IA ILT®IN & ASS CIATES, INC.
&�7
)a'vid T. Hamilton, P.E., G.E.
President/Geotechnical Engineer
Distribution: (1) Addressee
(1) Associated Soils, Attn: Mr. John Whitney
2860 Walnut Avenue, Signal Hill, CA
(1) Mr. Koch, 5448 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Han-iFlon R Associasl€s, One,
3eatecl�nical Engau erring Conatructicn ie,.6riV & Inspsctkn Materick latx>raknry
E-4
Engineering Comments
(Associated Soils Engineering —for Koch)
F-1
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
JARROD AND HOLLY KOCH
5448 Bayridge Road
Bayridge Road, California 90275
2860 WALNUT AVE. - SIGNAL HILL. CALIF. 90755 - PRONE 562,426-7990 - FAX 5621426 1842
April 2016
Project No. 16633.14
Subject: West Property Line Conditions, 5448 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Reference: "Consultation Letter No. 2, Property line Retaining Wall, 5448/5456 Bayridge Road, Rancho
Palos Verdes, California," by Hamilton & Associates, dated March 28,2016
Mr. and Mrs. Koch,
In accordance with your request, Associated Soils Engineering, Inc. (ASE) has reviewed the referenced report
and presents the following comments. A representative of ASE visited the property on April 26, 2016 to
observe the current site conditions.
Item 1: Based on ASE's observations and compaction testing performed during grading and wall backfill, it is
our opinion that all fill was placed with adequate compaction effort.
Item 2: The engineered retaining wall and other landscaping improvements completed along the 5448/5456
property line have essentially mitigated the pre-existing water and soil run-off from your neighbor's property
and onto your driveway. Any additional surface drainage issues are considered minor and can be controlled
through regular landscaping maintenance by both you and your neighbor.
Item 3: ASE did not observe any loose, non -compacted and unsupported soil between the two properties that
would cause a soil erosion condition that cannot be controlled with normal landscape maintenance.
Item 4: The outlet for the wall backdrain was observed to be exposed and extended beyond the face of the
keystone garden wall.
Additional Comment 1: The slope in has a height of less than 18 inches and is expected to remain grossly and
surficially stable with normal landscape maintenance.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions please call us at (562) 426-7990.
Respectfully submitted,
ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC,p
C'O
JOHN R. @@.
WHITNEY
\ `
-
No. 1929 1
e CERTIFIED 1
`hn R: Whitney, PG
tE►ENGINEER!,-!r, ,
A
glr�eer-in Geolo ist, CEG --1977
En g g
GEOLOGIST
1%,
10
Distribution: (1) Addressee
F-2
City's Retaining Wall Building Permit
Requirements
G-1
Rancho Palos Verdes
Building & Safety Division
Important: The Building & Safety Division and the Planning Division have separate
requirements for the approval of retaining walls. These requirements apply to the Building &
Safety portion only. All applicants must first obtain approval from the Planning Division.
Introduction
This handout is designed to clarify when a building permit and a geology site visit is required for a
proposed retaining wall. This includes various retaining wall types such as: concrete/masonry,
Verdura, Keystone, interlocking or shoring walls.
Definitions
Retaining wall: Any wall retaining soil.
Height of Retaining wall: Height of retaining walls for the purpose of determining whether a
building permit is required is measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall.
(This differs from how the height of retaining walls is measured by the Planning Division)
Slope: An inclined surface, the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of the horizontal distance
to vertical distance.
Stacked retaining walls: Retaining walls on slopes one above the other. Height of combined walls
will be considered in determining total height of the wall for permit process.
Building Permit Requirements
A building permit is required from the Building & Safety Division for:
Any retaining wall that exceeds 48 inches/4 feet in height as measured from the bottom of the
footing to the top of the wall.
Any retaining wall in excess of 30 inches/2.5ft in height as measured from the bottom of the footing
to the top of the wall that is constructed on or within 10 feet of a slope that has a grade of 5:1 (20%)
or steeper.
Geology Site Visit & Soils Reports
A geology site visit is required for ALL proposed retaining walls requiring a building permit. The
purpose of the site visit is to determine whether the preparation and approval of a soils report is
necessary in conjunction with the building permit.
The cost of the site visit is $255.00. If a soils report is determined to be required, an additional
review fee of $1,530.00 will be required upon submittal of the soils report for review/approval.
A preliminary site plan illustrating the approximate location and heights of the proposed retaining
walls shall be provided at the time of scheduling the site visit
Drainage
Provisions shall be made to relieve hydrostatic pressure via sub -drains behind the wall with
installation of a 4" perforated drain line and a 12" gravel pocket. Weep holes or solid outlet piles are
required to remove water from the wall area. Water is not permitted to drain onto adjoining
properties or walk way areas. Separate encroachment permit required for work in the Right -of -Way.
C:\Documents and Settings\paulc\My Documents\Retaining-Wali-Handout-5-19-11.doc
G-2
NUIrt
If a retaining wall permit is required the applicant shall provide a fully dimensioned site plan, drawn
to scale, showing the lot size, street, alley, easements, parking, walls, projections, and building
locations. Delineate all project elements and show distances to property lines and adjacent
structures. Your site plan shall also show the general site topography with slope, drainage patterns
and current discharge location(s). Clearly show the location and dimensions of the proposed new
wall(s) and provide Top of Wall (TW), Finish Grade (FG) and Top of Footing (TF) notations for each
wall, at any change in construction, and at intervals of 2 ft. where changes in height of retaining
condition(s) will exist.
Structural Design
Structural plans and calculations shall be based on the soils report data.
Structural plans and calculations shall be prepared by a State of California licensed Professional
Civil or Structural Engineer for retaining walls having:
(a) A height greater than 48 inches/ 4 feet ;
(b) Any surcharge (vehicle loading, adjacent footings, etc);
(c) Near a bluff top, the top or bottom of a slope and/or with sloping backfill;
(d) All shoring walls;
(e) When required to have a soils report.
(Walls constructed on the common property line will require a "Common Wall Agreement"
SURCHARGE LOAD
FROM STRUCTURE,
RETAINING WALL,
ETC,
THAN
1
SURCHARGE LOAD EXTENDS
WITHIN 14 SL➢PE FROM
BASE OF FOOTING
!7SURCHARGE
➢2ANG ABOVE
THAN 'W -
FENCING
ENCE IN
FENCING (WOOD, CHAIN
T IRON)
WHEN
>ONRY OR
TAINING WALL
G-3
SURCHARGE, VEHICLE,
BUILDING, FAKING LOT, E7C.�--,__;_-
-0 J)0
OVCT
;.i.' v. ��..
G-3
P.C. Resolution No. 2016-06
(Denial of Sturgeon Appeal)
H-1
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
H-2
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" tali 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
H-3
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
David L. Tomblin
Chairman
Terry Ro i e
Interim omm4npment Director
Secretary to the Planning Commission
01203.0005/293288.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2016-06
Page 3
M11
P.C. Minutes
(April 12, 2016 P.C. Meeting)
1-1
puty Director Mihranian stated the amendment to the motion would read to set back
the ar facade balcony nine feet from the east elevation and install an obscure panel up
to the cond floor roof plate.
Commissio r Leon was uncomfortable with this language, and noted that by doing so
he felt the hoLh,a design would be significantly compromised for a view that will never
really be taken. felt that one will be looking out at the view from this balcony rather
than turning and to ing into the neighbor's backyard. He would therefore be more
comfortable with just a obscure panel being required and leaving the balcony as is.
Deputy Director Mihranian t there is the ability to keep the symmetry and balance by
keeping the column on the to level and allowing for a patio cover on the lower level to
go all the way to the east fagade.
Chairman Tomblin asked if the hedgetNVould be part of the amendment.
Deputy Director Mihranian answered that taff's recommendation would be that the
hedges are not part of the amendment.
Chairman Tomblin and Commissioner Leon felt that hedges should stay as part of the
amendment.
Commissioner Nelson asked that staff read the amendment ck to the Commission one
more time.
Deputy Director Mihranian stated the amendment would be to requi that the rear fagade
balcony be setback nine feet to the west and an obscure panel be stalled up to the
second floor roof plate and to preserve the hedges along the side propeN line.
The amendment to the motion was approved, (6-0).
The motion to approve staff's recommendation as amended to strike th first
sentence in condition No. 16 and to add the amended language regarding the ear
balcony was approved, (6-0), thereby adopting PC Resolution 2016-05.
3. Appeal of an unsubstantial amendment determination (Case No. ZON2011-00281
5448 Bayridge Road
All Commissioners with the exception of Commissioner Emenhiser indicated they had
visited the subject site.
Senior Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining in 2013 the Planning
Commission approved a second story addition and retaining walls at the subject property.
She explained that at that time there were concerns raised by the neighbor in regards to
the height of the retaining wall. She stated that on the original plan the applicant showed
a 2'-8" garden wall, however during the course of construction it became clear that it
would be beneficial to have the height of the wall increased to approximately 4 feet in
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2016
Page 10
1-2
height in order to better protect the neighbor's slope. She explained that a wall under 3
feet in height does not need Planning Department approval, as they are typically allowed
by -right. However, once the wall was increased to 4 feet in height it is considered a
retaining wall and needs Planning Department approval. In looking at the modification,
Staff felt this change could be made at the Director level, as it would be considered an
unsubstantial amendment to the plan. This decision was based on the fact that the
Development Code permits retaining walls between 3 feet and 5 feet in height when it's
adjacent to a driveway; the 4 foot retaining wall would essentially be an extension of the
retaining wall that was approved by the Planning Commission in 2013; and that a 4 foot
high retaining wall is typically a Director level decision and not something that is taken to
the Planning Commission for review. She noted that because of the concerns the
neighbor had previously raised, staff notified the neighbor of this unsubstantial
amendment, and explained it was an appealable decision to the Planning Commission.
She discussed the appeal, noting that most of the points in the appeal pertain to the
structural integrity of the retaining wall and the accuracy of the information provided to the
City on an as -built plan, as opposed to the actual visibility of the wall in terms of aesthetics
which is what is under the purview of the Planning Commission. She briefly discussed
the points of the appeal, as outlined in the staff report, and noted that the addition of the
information, or the lack thereof, wouldn't have changed the Director's determination that
increasing this wall from 2'-8" to 4 feet in height was minor in nature and didn't need to
come back to the Planning Commission for review. Finally, she noted that in terms of
what would normally come before the Planning Commission, staff did not feel the
appellant had noted any of the concerns in regards to the findings that must be made in
approving a Grading Permit or that the aesthetics of the wall create an issue. She stated
staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the appeal based on the reasons
outlined in the staff report, and uphold the Director's determination.
Commissioner Leon asked what staff would consider a substantial change.
Senior Planner Mikhail explained there are instances where a project will come before
the Planning Commission and a number of issues regarding the case have arisen, such
as view impacts or over -height retaining walls. If a modification is suggested that the
Director determines could cause a significant impact, the modification is brought before
the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing for review.
Deputy Director Mihranian added that if the Commission determines this revision is a
substantial change and ultimately overturns the Director's decision, the applicant will then
request an amendment to the plan, the change will come back to the Planning
Commission at a noticed public hearing. He added that the recommendation from staff
would be to allow the walls to increase to a height of four feet. He explained that
structurally, to stabilize the slope between the two properties, the wall should be four feet
in height.
Commissioner Leon understood it was not in the purview of the Planning Department to
check the structural integrity of the wall, however he asked if the Commission can be
assured that a licensed engineer approved the structure of the wall.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2016
Page 11
1-3
Interim Director Rodrigue answered that the plan was stamped and signed by a licensed
engineer and the wall was inspected by staff. He stated he has also gone to the site
several times and he is confident in the structural integrity of the wall and where it is
placed. He added that one of the roles of the City's Building Official is to ensure structures
are built per State and City building codes, and that has been done in this instance.
Commissioner Leon asked the City's Building Official's opinion on the structural integrity
of the wall.
Building Official Christman stated that this wall was built to the standards of a four -foot
tall retaining wall. He stated there was a schedule included on the plans, and the wall
was built to the four -foot standard and the footings, rebar spacing and sizing met the
criteria for the height and retention of the wall.
Commissioner Nelson asked the Building Official how drainage was being addressed with
the wall.
Building Official Christman answered the wall has a french drain behind it and in areas
where the wall is directly on the property line a weep type drainage system since they
could not put a french drain on the neighbor's property.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked the Building Official if this wall is considered a retaining
wall because of the slope behind the wall.
Building Official Christman responded that walls over 30 inches measured from the
bottom of the footing, with a slope of 5:1 or greater are considered a retaining wall and
require a building permit per the California Building Code.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if the structural plans for this four -foot wall were part of
the construction documents.
Building Official Christman stated the wall was depicted on the S pages of the plans and
signed by the civil engineer.
Commissioner James read from the Municipal Code which states that a decision as to
what constitutes a substantive revision to a plan is made by the Director. If it is
substantive, a decision will be made by the same body which took the final action in
granting the original application. He noted the Municipal Code also says that in cases
involving the interpretation of the Planning Commission, the Director shall prepare a
written interpretation and transmit it to the appropriate review body. He read that the
Director's interpretation shall include a determination on whether the said interpretation
decision constitutes a minor, non -substantial revision to the approved application. He
read that this allows the appropriate body to either concur with the Director's
interpretation, or if the interpretation results in a minor revision to the approved
application, approve the revision by minute order or make a determination that the subject
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2016
Page 12
X111
interpretation may result in a substantive revision and thus require a formal review
hearing. He felt that this section of the Code clearly applies in this case. He also pointed
out the difference in definitions between "substantive" and "substantial". He felt that this
change has gotten to the Commission in the wrong way, and in doing so it has taken
away the ability of the Planning Commission to determine that this is a substantive change
and something the Commission should have looked at pursuant to the Municipal Code.
That being said, he felt that it may be the Commission has gotten to the same place
anyway and that the decision the Commission needs to consider is whether this four foot
wall is appropriate and something they should approve. He stated that he disagrees with
the way this has been handled, and felt it was quite clearly the design of Code Section
17.78.050, that the Commission at least get the opportunity to decide whether or not a
revision is non -substantial before the Director makes the decision.
Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated she will have to read and review the subject code
sections.
Chairman Tomblin felt that what has occurred with this project, and has happened in two
other very high profile cases, is that the Planning Commission made a decision based on
certain plans that were presented and now what has happened is a determination was
made regarding a change in the design and plans. In looking at the photos of the revised
wall, he did not think this design was something that would have ever been approved by
the Commission, especially the lower part of the wall near the sidewalk He asked staff
what the procedure would be if the Planning Commission were to uphold the appeal.
Deputy Director Mihranian explained that if the Planning Commission were to overturn
the Director's decision this item would come back to the Planning Commission as an
amendment to the conditions of approval with a staff recommendation to allow the
revision. The item would be agendized for a duly noticed public hearing. He also pointed
out that the small crib wall at the end of the retaining wall is less than three feet in height
and does not need Planning Department approval and is allowed by -right.
Interim Director Rodrigue pointed out that if the Planning Commission upholds the appeal
the property owner also has the option to lower the height of the wall to less than three
feet so that it doesn't need Planning Department approval. However, he did not think this
option would be in the best interest of the appellant.
Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing.
Rollin Sturgeon (appellant) stated his property has always been perfectly stable, however
the applicant has graded back to the property line and he felt the vertical cut is
unsupported. He felt the new wall should be engineered, and stated the property owner
has submitted a plan which he drew and he did not think the plan correctly reflects the
as -built wall. He stated that there is a large surcharge and his property is not supported.
He stated that his appeal was based on the fact that there was no permit when the wall
was built and they cut to the property line.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2016
Page 13
1-5
Commissioner Leon noted there are basically three sections to the wall, and asked Mr.
Sturgeon if he had any concerns with the long concrete section of the wall.
Mr. Sturgeon answered that he did not have a concern with the concrete section of the
wall, as an engineer provided drawings for the footings and steel in the wall. He felt the
new walls should be the same since they have a surcharge. In addition, when they
changed the wall from a three-foot garden wall to a four -foot retaining wall they did not
change the footings of the wall.
Jarrod Koch (applicant) stated he did not particularly like the design of the wall, however
it is a compromise between his architect and staff. He stated the wall is built the same
structurally the same as the first part of the wall. He explained that most of everything
done with this wall was at the request of the City. He stated the wall was built in 2014,
designed by three engineers, he works with a licensed architect, and a licensed general
contractor built the wall. He felt that he has done everything he could to satisfy the City
and his neighbor.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked what was in this area before the wall was built.
Mr. Koch pointed to a photo showing the grade in front of Mr. Sturgeon's home and
explained that is what was along the side between the two properties. He stated the
grade is currently reduced along the side yards with the dirt he has brought in and
compacted.
Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked, if there were approved plans as the applicant claimed,
why staff would require an as -built plan for the wall.
Deputy Director Mihranian answered that the building official required the as -built plan to
reflect what was actually at the site versus what was shown on the permitted plan.
Vice Chairman Cruikshank felt it would have been helpful in the decision making process
to see the original grading plan with the staff report, but added that he understood the
Commission's purview is just the height and not how the wall was structurally built. He
stated that in regards to what was built, he has no issues with the wall.
Commissioner Emenhiser stated that the small wall at the end of the driveway is not
particularly attractive, however he also sees a wall that was designed by a licensed
architect and engineer. He stated he will vote to overturn the appeal.
Commissioner James stated he would like staff to respond to some of the points made
by Mr. Sturgeon. Mr. Sturgeon stated that since there was a surcharge, this retaining wall
was automatically not permitted, and Commissioner James asked if staff disagreed with
that statement.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2016
Page 14
WO
Senior Planner Mikhail explained that there are two separate processes, the Planning
process which looks at the Development Code, and Building and Safety which works
within the Building Code. In discussing surcharge, this is a Building and Safety matter
rather than a Planning Department matter.
Commissioner James noted that Mr. Sturgeon had stated that when they changed from
the original 3 -foot garden wall to the 4 -foot retaining wall the footing was not changed,
and asked staff for clarification.
Senior Planner Mikhail responded that it was staff's understanding that when the property
owner was building the larger wall, they constructed the wall in question the same way,
with the same footings and foundation as the larger wall. She noted, however, that this
should be confirmed by the Building Official.
Building Official Christman stated that the foundation dimensions on the wall that started
out as 2'8" and is now 4 feet in height was built to the standard for the height that it is and
the retention behind it. In addition, this has been verified by a building inspector. In
respect to the small front wall, he explained that the total height of the wall is
approximately 24 inches, however the City only requires a permit if the wall is 30 inches
or more as measured from the bottom of the footing. He explained that wall does not
have a footing and does not require a permit.
Chairman Tomblin stated that he supports staff's recommendation on this item.
Commissioner Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendation and deny the
appeal, thereby upholding the Director's decision, seconded by Commissioner
Emenhiser.
Commissioner Leon noted it would be worthwhile for the Building Official to review the
compaction behind the wall.
The motion to deny the appeal as recommended by staff was approved, (6-0),
adopting PC Resolution 2016-06, (6-0).
4.
Deputy Director Mihranian no at based on the pre -agenda there are no items
scheduled for the April 26th meeting, a is recommending the Planning Commission
cancel that meeting.
Chairman Tomblin asked the Commission if there were itern-s"Mey.,vLanted to discuss for
the May 10th meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 2016
Page 15
1-7
P.C. Staff Report
(April 12, 2016 P.C. Meeting)
J-1
CITYOF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO
PALOS VERDES
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TERRY RODRIGUE, INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECT
DATE: APRIL 12, 2016 / 2.
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL FOR AN UNSUBSTANTIAL
AMENDMENT TO CASE NO. ZON2009-00108
Staff
Coordinator: Leza Mikhail, Senior Plann
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2016-_, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the
Director's decision to approve an "unsubstantial amendment" to Case No. ZON2009-00108
allowing a 4'-0" tall retaining wall within the front yard of the subject property.
BACKGROUND
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 (see attachment). 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 (see attached Commission -approved
project plans).
During construction, the applicant (Mr. and Mrs. Koch) constructed a 4'-0" tall retaining wall
within the front yard setback instead of the approved garden wall (less than 3'-0" in height).
According to the applicant, the 3'-0" high garden wall was not tall enough to adequately
support the transitional slope between the applicants' property and the neighboring property
(Rollin Sturgeon, 5456 Bayridge Road - Appellant). In light of this information, the then -
Community Development Director indicated that an "unsubstantial amendment" could
potentially be supported to allow the after -the -fact 4'-0" tall retaining wall, provided an as -
built plan, stamped by a registered professional civil engineer, is accepted by the City's
01203.0005/293242.1
J-2
Building Official.
On January 26, 2016, the applicant submitted an as -built plan to the City's Building and
Safety Division that was accepted by the Building Official. The applicant then formally
requested that the City consider amending the project approvals to allow a 4'-0" tall
retaining wall within the front yard setback rather than the approved 3'-0" tall garden wall.
Based on the applicant's information, the then -Community Development Director
determined that the proposed amendment did not constitute a substantial amendment to the
Planning Commission's approval and could be approved without Planning Commission
review. Therefore, on January 27, 2016, the Director approved an "unsubstantial
amendment" (attached), thereby approving a retaining wall that is V-0" taller in height within
the 20'-0" front yard setback (See attached amended plan).
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 notified the neighbor that the Director's decision
could be appealed to the Planning Commission by February 11, 2016.
On February 11, 2016, a timely appeal (see attachment) 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.
On March 24, 2016, pursuant to Section 17.80.090, 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. Staff received one additional letter from the Appellant on March 29, 2016, which is
addressed under Additional Information (see attachment).
DISCUSSION
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..." As noted in the Background Section, the Director
determined that the 4'-0" tall retaining wall within the 20'-0" front yard setback would not
constitute a substantive change to the Commission -approved project nor would necessitate
the need for Planning Commission review for the following reasons:
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.
01203.0005/293242.1 Paj e 2
-3
A copy of the "unsubstantial amendment" approved by the then -Director is attached, along
with the original Planning Commission Staff Report, which contains a full analysis of the
original project (see attachment). Additionally, attached is an excerpt of the originally
approved plans showing the garden wall (see attachment).
For the purposes of this Report, Staff's discussion focuses on the issues raised in the
appeal letter submitted by the Appellant on February 11, 2016 (See attachment). It should
be noted, that many of 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 a
project. That being said, the appeal issues (in some cases combined and summarized) are
shown in bold below, followed by Staff's responses.
Appellant's Issue No. 1: The `as -built' plans submitted to the City on January 26, 2016
are lacking essential details necessary upon which to base a decision. The plans
should have a heading by the person/entity that prepared the plan, and the `as -built'
plan must be dated and signed to have the force of law. Furthermore, the plans
should have been stamped by the architect of the past 3 years to be acceptable.
Staff's Response: According to the Uniform Building Code (UBC), the architect who
prepared the original plan is not required to sign the 'as -built' plan. As shown on the 'as -
built' plan submitted to the Building and Safety Division on January 21, 2016 and to the
Community Development Department on January 26, 2016, included a 'wet -stamp' approval
from a Civil Engineer (A.B. Menor, Lic. No. C25839). Furthermore, in response to the
Appellant's concerns related to the 'as -built' plans requiring a date with a signature block,
the Building Official requested that the Applicant submit a revised 'as -built' plan providing
this information. As such, on March 28, 2016, the Applicant submitted an updated 'as -built'
plan with the proper signature block and date of the Civil Engineer (see attachment).
Although this information was missing from the original 'as -built' plan, the lack of a signature
block and date would not have affected the Director's determination that a 4'-0" tall retaining
wall on the Applicant's property is an unsubstantial amendment to the original plan
approved by the Planning Commission.
Appellant's Issue No. 2: The `as -built' plans submitted to the City on January 26, 2016
lacks essential details necessary upon which to base a decision. The section drawing
does not distinguish between cut and fill as required by the Development Code, and
the scale differs between the various drawings (front and plan views) and is not given
on another drawing.
Staff's Response: The then -Director's "unsubstantial amendment" determination to allow the
3'-0" tall garden wall within the front yard to be increased to a 4'-0" tall retaining wall was
based on information the Applicant provided the City to stabilize the transitional slope,
including the submittal of an 'as -built' plan signed by a Civil Engineer. The Appellant asserts
that the Applicant should have been required by the City to submit more detailed plans in
order for the Director to make a determination that the 4'-0" tall retaining wall is an
unsubstantial amendment. According to Section 17.76.040(D)(2) of the RPVMC (Grading
Permits), unless waived by the Director, a request to approve grading shall be accompanied
01203.0005/293242.1 Paye 3
4
by scaled plans or drawing, prepared and signed, as appropriate, by a registered civil
engineer, architect or landscape architect which shows an array of information. Given that
building and grading permits were issued by the City based on approved engineering plans
that depicted the information (i.e. grading quantities, depth of cut heights, scale, structural
specifications, etc.) needed to issue a permit, and the `as -built' plan supplemented the
original permitted plan for the requested retaining wall modification, the Building Official did
not require the submittal of additional engineered plans because the 4'-0" tall retaining wall
was considered an addendum to the original permitted plan that included the necessary
engineered specifications. For this reason, the then -Director waived the requirement for the
applicant to submit a new set of detailed plans. Given this, requiring the submittal of
additional detailed plans would not have altered the then -Director's determination to
approve an "Unsubstantial Amendment" to the project.
Appellant's Issue No. 3: The 'as -built' plans submitted to the City on January 26, 2016
are lacking essential details necessary upon which to base a decision. The
transitional slope shown fails to adequately retain the Appellant's property and
results in a 100% slope which could result in unintended sloughing and erosion.
Additionally, the retaining wall back fill compaction test were run on 9-14-14, and the
`as -built' plans were prepared more than 1 % years later, and additional compaction
tests should be required.
Staff's Response: Throughout the construction process, inspections were conducted by the
Building and Safety Division to ensure compliance with the plans permitted by the City. As
part of the construction inspections, the subject retaining wall was examined along with the
stability of the transitional slope. In fact, the retaining wall was constructed at a height of 4'-
0' to retain potential sloughing caused by erosion. Nonetheless, the Appellant's slope
stability and erosion concerns, which do not fall under the purview of the Planning
Department or the Planning Commission, but are instead enforced by the Building and
Safety Division through the Uniform Building Code, are currently being reviewed by the
City's Building Official as the building permit has not been finalized yet (the building permit
will expire on July 10, 2016). Therefore, Staff does not believe that these particular issues
affect the determination that the 4'-0' tall retaining wall is an "Unsubstantial Amendment."
Appellant's Issue No. 4: The stacked crib wall running from the retaining wall to the
sidewalk is not shown on the subject plan. It is a retaining wall with a surcharge, and
there is no foundation or drainage system, and should have been reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission.
Staff's Response: The stacked crib wall that extends between the 4'-0" tall retaining wall
and the sidewalk was installed by the Applicant to further stabilize the transitional slope at
the front of the property. As previously reported, the City's Development Code considers
walls that are less than 3'-0" in height a "by -right" garden wall that is exempt from the
Planning Department's review. That being said, in response to the Appellant's concerns,
Planning Staff conducted a field inspection to determine whether review by the Planning
Department would be required for the stacked crib wall. Based on the site inspection, it was
determined that the wall is retaining less than T-0" of earth, and is thus considered a "by -
right" garden wall which is exempt from the Planning Division's review, including the
Planning Commission.
01203.0005/293242.1 Paj e 4
-5
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
On March 29, 2016, the Appellant submitted a supplemental comment letter and a report
from the Appellant's geotechnical engineer (Hamilton and Associates) to the City for
consideration (attached). The Appellant noted many of the same concerns in the
supplemental letter as described in the original appeal letter dated February 11, 2016 and
discussed in this Staff Report. The Appellant's supplemental letter continues to relate to the
structural aspect of the subject retaining wall which is governed by the Uniform Building
Code under the purview of the City's Building and Safety Division, not the Planning
Division's nor the Planning Commission's purview. Furthermore, Staff is of the opinion that
the notations submitted in the supplemental letter do not affect the determination made by
the then -Director to approve the modifications to the 4'-0" tall retaining wall as an
"Unsubstantial Amendment."
It is important to note that Building Permit (BLD2013-00816) for the project, which includes
the subject 4'-0" tall retaining wall, will expire on July 10, 2016. Given this, the Building
Official and Staff have been, and continues to, diligently work with the Applicant and
Appellant to address the issues brought forward by both parties.
CONCLUSION
Based on the discussion contained herein, it is Staff's opinion that the issues raised by the
Appellant are not relevant in terms of the Planning Division's or the Planning Commission's
purview because they specifically relate to the structural engineering of the retaining wall
and transitional slope. These engineering items fall under the purview of the Uniform
Building Code which is upheld by the City's Building and Safety Division. Thus, the height
change to the retaining wall, resulting in a 4'-0" tall retaining wall that was approved by the
then -Director qualifies as an "unsubstantial amendment." Furthermore, the Appellant is not
appealing the overall height of the retaining wall, nor does Appellant make mention that the
height of the wall creates an aesthetic impact which is a relevant concern typically assessed
by the Planning Division. The Appellant's appeal letter does not question the City's
determination that the required findings for a Grading Permit through the Development
Code could not be met.
For these reasons, as well as the reasons described under the Discussion section of this
report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2016-
_, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision to approve an
"unsubstantial amendment" to Case No. ZON2009-00108 allowing a 4,4' tall retaining wall
within the front yard of the subject property.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's Recommendation, the following alternatives are available for
consideration by the Planning Commission:
1) Uphold the appeal, thereby overturning the Director's decision to approve the
"Unsubstantial Amendment" to Case No. ZON2009-00108, without prejudice, by
directing the Applicant to reduce the height of the retaining wall to the originally
01203.00051293242.1 Pa3e 5
J� 6
approved height, and direct Staff to prepare an appropriate P.C. Resolution for adoption
at the next Planning Commission meeting; or
2) Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the
applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a
date certain.
Attachments:
• Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2016-_ (Denial)
• Director's Unsubstantial Amendment — dated January 27, 2016
• Appeal Letter from Rollin Sturgeon — submitted February 11, 2016
• Supplemental Letter from Rollin Sturgeon — submitted March 29, 2016
• P.C. Resolution No. 2013-04 and Original Staff Report and attachments —
dated February 12, 2013
• Original P.C. Approved Plan Excerpt
• `As -Built' Plans — submitted March 28, 2016
01203.0005/293242.1 Page 6
J-7
Appeal Letter to Planning Commission
(dated February 11, 2016)
K-1
�J-q 'Ili INJAi V (TO
Jq
c-/
4/6
K-2
L'
-7'
�Al CIC"O L,
K-2
I _e9
K-3
Supplemental Letter to Planning Commission
(dated March 29, 2016)
L-1
n
l�j
U`lL�lv'.�l/�'l ✓i� C/1 -s lop- /� �X'a.G�- Az
:LL.'�✓ ,�!'L- � r.,/v...�'��Ji.l G�/ ���=^V '-! f _'^'.l..d' d j�v,.,.le�LJW — `%� ��� cep'�b=�v� ����.fi��L/��'lJ
•`� . ���L.G��Li .-.�(,-�� ,a',Y��" `�7fi"L�/�f72 � /p,1�G�',r2F' r` , ['� „li
e � �
r �
�s�f'i-�� �-'J�—G� � �'J��./fi..-�j(✓ �-"'� sr°�, �� �..-�I �-��2G�� fi'1�.�� hG-�L„��'�F,�,,,
�� t.�"�_ C".f.��F.t;.�,� �rz��',%b.�f+k.-�-eci.:z-' �-�%L/•-� ..�2'�:i� ,r�'1,,�-�� _--`Gi�,CCr�%�+-C:� '
�� o ..�` =�G.�— <-%Le.:�l..�'�✓�'`.m. f,�l.�/�j�- ..-���.. .!�'liu�(�� '�.�i-`�.ti'. f � �%�� fi �.�'Z.�'t.��,v- �' �—'����C.—L..'E�
`�,�fG .rt'✓� a``�' �� F �C'..e-�--'ems � a,.�-'� c�`'-�Z;�'�..''�?��' �� /�G
pis
,�"?..G. .�✓'� .- .....✓C -/i �i�G.-g`e'�''.�'� �"Y`� .,/�f�zL... �iE%��7�`:� �,......--'4..'<��'i'..iZr'�/,� <��/(`js_, '7'a,'��.
L-2
„•� ��7a_/✓ !�fcC�ziS�a„mowsl
/I�a2G
'rtes G /d&G �' d 1
/ � 4
Way
CA
_�� I ...-��jLc� �2.-. Com. -a --z C .,.��c ��� e��/7.-.�� �-- _.��,�,� �� , ' % ._..✓.��G�,/�
�� ' � 1������ ...--��--r�.l�.:�-z.��� �- ��-%� rte• ..�z.��:.
i�: �fJ�✓ ��.n. d � e
�� <� G'���t�.. �/ < / S�'J` �,/ ""�/'�4... v'� �-lG.�� ! r �~ �.�L-%GiC„�C G�=� �.t:.1` �"✓l-•c,_<<:s'-`��,-
--xj F
C' -i d"'- r -'t L.e=�G”.-ire`• %F� t��-2`!
( //�L.�.�”✓l/y'r✓Y �.��t i w�f/L'Jh-r
li
.r�,G�C.='o' L�''Z�,ct�`i'i .��� t✓�2.®_ ,.PR�i'w. ��C/� � '��t--C�i� �'`i
J L-3
42-
0- "'e
)r- --A
71eA, V—
cz
-71
nd�z-ry
�'1
' L-4
• 1 T
%08
1,4
r7
y
As Built for 5448 Bayridgeo RFECEEIVED
Permit Number BL®2013-00816 IANI 2016
CA!sE' pvo Z®tia*2-®II m oc)-ZoI U I�G&rt
A0.05 Changes: ro wa
1. Wall Height EL 102M..
From: 2' 11" T.O.Wd
To: 4' EL 100.4
2. B.O. Wall _ _ B.O. Wall
From: 97.14' - _ - _ EL y66.40
To: 96.21' ——,T.CY. t7acie -
-..
A0.01 Changes:
3. B.O. Wall
From: 97.51'
To: 96.21'
` ~ 0.
A0.05 Changes:
r`, tns slrk
1. Wall Height T3U" ,•
.,
From: 2' 11" T a��v
.
To: 4' - - — -.— ----- - of - as qxr "n5 _
! L
2. B.O. Wall
From: 97.14' -�
faw a
To: 96.21';
^ - h
41
yxar f ba
i
/-'0 Wall Section 2
1-�
Director's Unsubstantial Amendment
(dated January 27, 2016)
M-1
NO " i11 .LL
PALOS VERDES
TO: ADDRESS FILE
FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEV P NT DIRECTOR
DATE: JANUARY 27, 2016
SUBJECT: UNSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT #3 (CASE NO. ZON2011-00281)
5448 BAYRIDGE DR.
Project Manager: Leza Mikhail, Senior PlanCer,�
DISCUSSION
On February 12, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which
time the Planning Commission approved a project to allow the construction of a new second
story addition to an existing one-story residence (Resolution No. 2013-04). The project also
allowed the construction of new retaining walls along the west side property line and within the
rear yard. The planning approval and approved plans, however did not include the construction
of a retaining wall within the 20'-0" front yard setback. Instead, the original plans included the
construction of a "garden wall" that was proposed to be less than 3'-0" in height and exempt
from a planning permit within the front yard setback.
Instead of constructing a "garden wall" less than 3'-0" in height, the property owner constructed
a 4'-0" tall retaining wall within the front yard setback. During the construction process, the City's
Building Department issued a correction notice to the property owner, noting the need to reduce
the height of the new wall to less than 3'-0" in order to avoid the need for permits, or obtain
additional approvals for the new retaining wall. The applicant noted that they felt the new
retaining wall that was installed at 4'-0" in height was necessary to stabilize the adjacent slope
and to ensure that the neighbor's property (5456 Bayridge Road) and transitional slope would
not be destabilized. As a result of the property owner's safety concerns, the Community
Development Director noted that an "unsubstantial amendment" could be supported to allow a
4'-0" tall retaining wall within the 20'-0" front yard setback, provided an `as -built' set of plans
stamped by a registered professional civil engineer was accepted by the City's Building Official.
On January 21, 2016, the property owner submitted the 'as -built' plan for a 4'-0" tall retaining
wall within the front yard setback. Said plan was determined to be acceptable by the City's
Building Official. Subsequently, on January 26, 2016, the applicant requested that an
amendment to the approved project be approved to allow the deviation from the originally
approved plans given that the new 4'-0" tall retaining wall is necessary to provide stability to the
M-2
l g N
�F
i
CITY OF
RANCHO
NO " i11 .LL
PALOS VERDES
TO: ADDRESS FILE
FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEV P NT DIRECTOR
DATE: JANUARY 27, 2016
SUBJECT: UNSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT #3 (CASE NO. ZON2011-00281)
5448 BAYRIDGE DR.
Project Manager: Leza Mikhail, Senior PlanCer,�
DISCUSSION
On February 12, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which
time the Planning Commission approved a project to allow the construction of a new second
story addition to an existing one-story residence (Resolution No. 2013-04). The project also
allowed the construction of new retaining walls along the west side property line and within the
rear yard. The planning approval and approved plans, however did not include the construction
of a retaining wall within the 20'-0" front yard setback. Instead, the original plans included the
construction of a "garden wall" that was proposed to be less than 3'-0" in height and exempt
from a planning permit within the front yard setback.
Instead of constructing a "garden wall" less than 3'-0" in height, the property owner constructed
a 4'-0" tall retaining wall within the front yard setback. During the construction process, the City's
Building Department issued a correction notice to the property owner, noting the need to reduce
the height of the new wall to less than 3'-0" in order to avoid the need for permits, or obtain
additional approvals for the new retaining wall. The applicant noted that they felt the new
retaining wall that was installed at 4'-0" in height was necessary to stabilize the adjacent slope
and to ensure that the neighbor's property (5456 Bayridge Road) and transitional slope would
not be destabilized. As a result of the property owner's safety concerns, the Community
Development Director noted that an "unsubstantial amendment" could be supported to allow a
4'-0" tall retaining wall within the 20'-0" front yard setback, provided an `as -built' set of plans
stamped by a registered professional civil engineer was accepted by the City's Building Official.
On January 21, 2016, the property owner submitted the 'as -built' plan for a 4'-0" tall retaining
wall within the front yard setback. Said plan was determined to be acceptable by the City's
Building Official. Subsequently, on January 26, 2016, the applicant requested that an
amendment to the approved project be approved to allow the deviation from the originally
approved plans given that the new 4'-0" tall retaining wall is necessary to provide stability to the
M-2
transitional slope between the subject property (5448 Bayridge Road) and the neighbor's
property (5456 Bayridge Road). The applicant noted that they could reduce the height of the
retaining wall in question to less than 3'-0", however it could potentially compromise the
neighbor's landscaping. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040(A), the Community Development
Director is approving the unsubstantial amendment to allow the deviations to the wall located
within the 20'-0" front yard setback, at a maximum height of 4'-0", and as depicted on the
approved `as -built' plans, A copy of the `as -built' plans reflecting the requested changes and
amendment are attached to this memorandum.
Given that the neighbor located at 5456 Bayridge Dr., noted concerns with deviating from the
"by -right" grading standards throughout the public hearing process, as well as the building
process, Staff has informed the neighbor of the proposed amendment. A copy of the
unsubstantial amendment will be provided to the property owner located at 5456 Bayridge Road
(Mr. Rollin Sturgeon). Any interested person may appeal the Director's decision, in writing, to the
Planning Commission by February 11, 2016. A $2,275 appeal fee must accompany any appeal.
The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appael and any specific action being requested by the
appellant. The Department hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 pm., Monday through Thursday,
and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Friday.
M-3
As Built for 5448 Bayridge
Permit dumber LD2013-00816
{
10.05 Changes:
1, Wall Hcight
From: 2'11" 0'"
2. 8.O. Wall 0.0.W1,11
From: 97.14' - �� 74,ti�
To: 96.21' r -a. G;_mlg
/0.01 Changes:
3, B.O. Wall
From: 97.51'
To: 96.21'
A0.05 Changes;^.
1. Wall Height
From: 2' 11"
.
To: 4'
N e t
2. B.Q. Wall6,
w
From: 97.14'
4
�aE�
To: 96.21'
.t � A
" M*
3,
183111 ection
ITI
!A 2 p1- , 0161
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-04 and Original Staff
Report
(dated February 12, 2013)
N-1
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF
A 412 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE,
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,560 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION, 370 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE, 49.5 CUBIC
YARDS OF GRADING AND NEW RETAINING WALLS
ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND REAR YARD.
LOCATED AT 5448 BAYRIDGE ROAD (CASE NO ZON2011-
00281).
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2011, the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Koch, submitted
applications for Planning Case No. ZON2011-00281 for a Site Plan Review to construct a
first story addition to the existing residence located at 5448 Bayridge; and,
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2011, Staff completed the initial review of the
application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete for processing.
Subsequently, the applicant submitted a revised project with a request for a Height
Variation and Grading Permit on December 1, 2011. The applicant submitted revisions on
multiple occasions; and,
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2013, the application for Planning Case
No. ZON2011-00281 was 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 the approval of the requested applications would
have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been
found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(e)(2)); 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 February 12, 2013, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND,
DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: With respect to the application for a Height Variation to allow the
construction of a new second story addition:
N-2
A. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process
established by obtaining 10 signatures from the properties within 100 feet (76%)
and 26 signatures from the property owners within 500 feet (25%) of the subject
property.
B. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that
exceeds sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public
property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails),
which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as
City -designated viewing areas. Specifically, due to the location of the property and
the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structure is not visible from a
public viewing area or viewing site and will therefore, not impair a view.
C. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that
exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject
property is located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood,
on an existing pad lot. The residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as
defined in the Municipal Code.
D. The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed new addition that is above
sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not
significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. Specifically, a
majority of the residences along the north side of Bayridge Road have expansive
views of the Pacific Ocean in a southbound direction. The remaining residences
located south and 50-60 feet upslope of Bayridge Road, along Elmbank Road, also
have views of the Pacific Ocean in a southward direction. A windshield survey did
not reveal any view impacts from neighboring properties. Staff also spoke with an
upslope neighbor (property owner of 5433 Elmbank Road) who noted that the
proposed project did not impair a protected view from her parcel.
E. The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed new structure that is above
sixteen feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonable
minimize the impairment of a view due to the fact that the second story addition
does not create a view impairment from a neighboring property.
F. The Height Variation is warranted since there is no significant cumulative view
impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall
be determined by: (a) considering the amount of view impairment that would be
caused by the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or
addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) considering the
amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other
parcels if similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. The
four closest homes (5504, 5456, 5442, and 5436 Bayridge Rd.) are also located
more than 50-60 feet below the properties along Elmbank Rd. Staff is of the opinion
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-04
Page 2 of 9
N-3
that construction of second story additions to these homes would not result in any
view impairment to the properties above.
G. With the exception of the existing legal, non -conforming front and east side yard
setbacks, the proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements,
including the development standards related to the RS -5 zoning district with respect
to lot coverage and setbacks, and the off-street parking requirements for single-
family residences.
H. The proposed addition is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in
terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style and bulk and mass.
The proposed lot coverage and setbacks are consistent with those of the
surrounding properties. The architectural style of the proposed residence would
maintain the architectural style found in the immediate neighborhood as well as the
existing residence by utilizing a stucco finish, tile roof materials, and wood siding,
similar to the materials found within the surrounding neighborhood. With regard to
the overall size of the residence, the proposed addition has been designed to
reduce potential bulk and mass as seen from neighboring properties by
incorporating hipped and gable -end roof structures, and undulating facades to break
up the appearance of the structure as seen from the street and other properties.
I. The Height Variation is warranted since the new addition, as conditioned, would not
create an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting
residences. The subject lot is located 50-60 feet below the properties along
Elmbank Rd. The only residences that could potentially incur privacy impacts would
be the properties directly to the east and west. However, the project includes
windows whereby the lower half of the windows along the east and west facing
facades will be translucent. Additional conditions of approval to ensure that privacy
impacts are fully mitigated have been added to the project approval. Specifically, the
conditions require that the lower half of the these windows be fixed and translucent.
Section 2: With regard to the Grading Permit:
A. The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot. Specifically, the underlying zoning district is single-family
residential and the property was previously graded to accommodate a new single-
family residence. The proposed grading (49.5 cubic yards of cut) and proposed
retaining walls and garden wall allow the applicant the ability to expand and provide
access to their rear yard.
B. The proposed grading does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships
with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. The proposed
grading and retaining walls will be located along the west side of the residence, in
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-04
Page 3 of 9
M
the side and rear yard and will not be easily visible from the public right-of-way or
neighboring properties.
C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural. The applicant is proposing to construct a
upslope retaining wall in the rear yard whereby no new contours will be created. The
applicant is also proposing a new T-6" tall retaining wall along the west side yard
and a T-6" to 4'-0" tall retaining wall with a small slope restored in front of the
retaining wall at a maximum gradient of 30%.
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features
and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or
manufactured slope into natural topography. The grading would be limited to a small
area at the rear of the property and along the side yard and driveway. In order to
limit the visibility of the retaining wall, the applicant has proposed to restore a small
amount of the slope in front of the retaining wall with a slope of 30%, which is similar
to the slope that previously existing.
E. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence
of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property.
F, The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, cut and fill and
finished slope contours. Specifically, the proposed grading would not occur on an
extreme slope (35% or greater), the proposed grading will not significantly alter the
contours of the lot, and no finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created.
Section 4: The Site Plan Review Permit can be approved as the proposed project
will comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and the maximum
allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS -5 zone. Specifically,
the project will meet the maximum allowable lot coverage of 53% (39% proposed), is
compatible with the neighborhood and the proposed setbacks far exceed the minimum
required setbacks for residential lots.
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 17.02.040(C)(1)(g) 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) days
following February 27, 2013, 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
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-04
Page 4 of 9
N-5
•
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Height
Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Planning Case No. ZON2011-00218) for
the demolition of the existing 412 square foot garage, and the construction of a new 590
square foot first floor addition, 970 square foot second floor addition and a new 370 square
foot attached garage. The approval also includes 49.5 cubic yards of grading for the
construction of new retaining walls along the rear and side yard located at 5448 Bayridge
Road, subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit 'A'.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of February 2013, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Leon, Lewis, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser and
Chairman Tetreault
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
RECUSSALS: Commissioner Gerstner
ABSENT: Commissioner Nelson
P ul etreault
Chairman
Joel Rotas, aicP
Community Development Director
Secretary to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-04
Page 5 of- 9
we
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2011-00218
(Koch, 5448 Bayridge)
General Conditions:
1. 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 listed below. Failure to
provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this
approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant
shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works for any curb
cuts, dumpsters in the street or any other temporary or permanent improvements
within the public rights-of-way.
3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.
4. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform
to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but
not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards.
5. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may
because to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures
contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code.
6. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the
approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section
17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of
the Notice of Decision, 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
Community Development Director and approved by the Director.
7. 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.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-04
Page 6 of 9
N-7
8. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed
in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the
effective date of the Notice of Decision.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets 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, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday
through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal
holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code. Trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining
public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with
the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition.
11. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
project shall maintain a maximum of 52% lot coverage (39% proposed) and the
following setbacks from the applicable property lines:
Front 20 feet (16'-7" existing, No Change)
Side East 5' feet (4'-7" existing, No Change)
Side West 5 feet (5'-3" proposed)
Rear 15 feet (30'-5" proposed)
12. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not
exceed 50%.
13. A minimum 2 -car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space
being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of
9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, with a minimum of 7 feet of vertical clearance.
14. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section
17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is
permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of
a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is
physically located.
15. All landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control
techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-04
Page 7 of 9
•
16. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if
required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to
the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will
minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners.
17. All applicable permits required by the Building and Safety Division shall be obtained
by the applicant prior to the commencement of construction.
Height Variation Conditions:
18. This approval is for the demolition of an existing 412 square foot detached garage
and the construction of a new 590 square foot first floor addition, 970 square foot
second floor addition and new 370 square foot attached garage. The overall square
footage of the residence and garage will be 3,382. BUILDING AREA
CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED. A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR
SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BULDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL PRIOR TO BULDING PERMIT FINAL.
19. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project will be 24'-9", as measured from the
lowest finished grade adjacent to the foundation of the structure to the highest
ridgeline and 22'-7.5", as measured from the highest existing grade covered by the
structure 22'-5 5/8" to the top of the highest ridgeline (elev. 122.625'). BUILDING
HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED,
Grading Permit Conditions
20. This approval allows a maximum of 49.5 cubic yards of grading to be located at
the rear and along the west side of the residence.
27. The following retaining walls are permitted:
a. A 3'-6" tall retaining wall along the west side property line
b. A 3'-6" to 4'-0" tall retaining wall along the west side of the driveway
c. A 5'-8" to 6'-9" tall retaining wall along within the rear yard
Privacy Impairment Mitigation Conditions
28. The second story windows located along the east and west facing facades of the
proposed second story shall be fixed and translucent. Directly above each fixed
window, a clerestory window that can be opened is permitted. The bottom of the
clerestory window frames shall not be less than 5-6" as measured from the
interior second story floor. Prior to submittal of plans into Building and Safety
Plan, the applicant shall provide revised plans illustrating these requirements.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-04
Page 8 of 9
M
Prior to "final" on the Building Permit, the applicant shall notify the planner to
inspect these windows for compliance with this condition of approval.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-04
Page 9of9
N-10
STAFF
REPORT
THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 7931A-5
Tl CHAIRMANAND MEMBERS OF THE
FROM: Cummuw//,DEvEt4l
DIRECTOR
DATE; FEBRUARY 12,2013
SUBJECT:
HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT
& SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO,
Z0N2011-00281)
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
S44VBAYR|DGEROAD
APPLICANT:
SCOTT PRENT|CEARCHITECTS
LANDOWNER:
MR, & MRS. KOCH
STAFF
LEZAN\|MHA|L
COORDINATOR:
ASSOCIATE PLANNE
REQUESTED ACTION: A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A412 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE' AND
CONSTRUCT NEW 59O SQUARE FOOT FIRST FLOOR ADDITION, 870 SQUARE
FOOT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AND A NEW 370 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED
GARAGE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES 49.SCUBIC YARDS OPGRADING FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF WEVY RETAINING WALLS ALONG THE WEST SIDE
PROPERTY LINE AND REAR YARD.
ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO, 2013-_ THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
THE HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 544o
gAYRiDGEROAD (CASE NO, ZO02V1i-0O28i)
REFERENCES:
ZONING: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL —RG'5
LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT- (CASE NO. ZON2011-00281)
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
PAGE 2
CODE SECTIONS: 17.02, 17.48, 17.76.040, & 17.96
GENERAL PLAN: RESIDENTIAL -2-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
TRAILS PLAN: N/A
SPECIFIC PLAN: N/A
CEQA: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1)
ACTION DEADLINE: MARCH 3, 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE
On October 6, 2011, the applicant submitted a Site Plan Review application to the
Community Development Department for review and processing. The applicant
requested approval to construct a 590 square foot, first floor addition to the existing
single -story residence at 5448 Bayridge Road.
On October 20, 2011, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time
the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans,
The applicant submitted revisions, including a revised project to include a request for a
second floor addition and grading, on December 1, 2011, February 21, 2012, July 24,
2012, November 6, 2012, and finally on December 13, 2012. After a site inspection of
the silhouette, Staff deemed the application complete on January 2, 2013.
On January 3, 2013, Staff mailed notices to 102 property owners within a 500 -foot
radius from the subject property, providing a 30 -day time period for the submittal of
comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula
News on January 3, 2013. Staff received written commentary from the two adjacent
property owners: 1) Rollin Sturgeon, property owner at 5456 Bayridge Road and 2)
Jason and Jane Butcher, property owners at 5442 Bayridge Road.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on the south side of Bayridge Road, east of Basswood Ave.
and north of Elmbank Road. The property is a pad lot (less than 5% slope) from the
front property line to a portion of the rear yard, beyond which an extreme slope (greater
than 35%) ascends 15 feet to the rear property line. The property is 10,412 square feet
in area and is currently improved with a 1,452 foot single -story residence and a 412
square foot garage.
The existing residence has a 16'-7" non -conforming front yard setback (20'-0" required)
and a 4'-7" non -conforming east side yard setback (5'-0" required). When combined, the
existing residence and garage (1,913 square feet) and impervious surface areas,
including the driveway/parking area (1,666 square feet) yield a total lot coverage of
3,579 square feet, or 34% of the 10,412 square foot lot.
2
N-12
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT—(CASE NO. ZON2011-00281)
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
PAGE 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting to demolish a 412 square foot detached garage, and
construct a new 590 square foot first floor addition, 970 square foot second floor
addition and a new 370 square foot attached garage. The overall height of the
residence will be 24'-9", as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the
foundation of the structure to the highest ridgeline, and 22'-5 5/8", as measured from the
highest existing grade covered by the structure to the top of the highest ridgeline.
With the exception of the existing non -conforming front and east side yard setbacks
discussed under the Site Description, the additions would maintain all required setbacks
for city created lots. Although Section 17.84.060(E) of the RPV Development Code
requires non -conforming structures to be brought into compliance with development
when more than 50% of the existing floor area will be added to a structure, the
requirement does not apply to non -conforming structures that do not meet the setback
standards of the development Code. As such, the existing non -conforming setbacks are
permitted to remain. With regard to lot coverage, the proposed modified residence and
garage footprint (2,438 square feet), and other impervious surface areas, including the
driveway/parking area (1,666 square feet), yield a total lot coverage of 4,101 square
feet, or 39% of the 10,412 square foot lot.
The applicant is also proposing 49.5 cubic yards of grading for the construction of a new
T-6" tall retaining wall along a portion of the west side property line, a T-6" — 4'-0" tall
retaining wall along the west side of the driveway, and a 5'-8" --- 6'-9" tall upslope
retaining wall in the rear yard.
Table 9. Project Statistics;
[CTERICODE EXISTING NEIN
RA REQUIREMENT RESIDENCE RESIDENCE
Lot Size
8,000 s.f.
10,412 s.f.
No change
Structure Size
N/A
1,864 s.f.
3,382 s.f.
Setbacks
Front (south)
20'-0"
16-7"
Non -conforming -
No Change
Side (east)
5'-0"
4'-7"
Non -conforming -
No Change
Side west
5'-0')
8'-6"
5'-3°
Rear north
15-0"
32'-6" (approx.)
30'-5" to addition
Lot Coverage %
52%
34%
39%
(square feet
3,579 s.f.
4,101 s.f.
-------
-_ ............. ......... -... -
3
N-13
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE NO. ZON2011-002$1)
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
PAGE 4
CRITERIA
CODE
REQUIREMENT
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
NEW
RESIDENCE
Enclosed Parking
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces
Structure Height
Lowest grade adjacent
to the building
foundation/slab.
16'
< 16,4,
24'-10.9"
i
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section
15303(e)(2)(additions) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA.
Specifically, the project includes a minor addition and alteration to an existing structure
that will not result in a structure that exceeds 10,000 square feet. Further, the project is
in an area where all public services and facilities are available and the project is not
located in an environmentally sensitive area. As such, this project has been determined
not to have a significant impact on the environment.
CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS
HEIGHT VARIATION
Since the proposed two-story addition exceeds the 16720' "by right" building envelope,
a Height Variation is required for this request. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section No.
17.02.040(C)(1)(a), the Community Development Director is required to refer the
application to the Planning Commission for consideration whenever the project may
potentially impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. As a preliminary
assessment revealed that there may be potential for this project to impair views as seen
from the viewing area of other parcels, Planning Commission review of the application is
required.
Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(C)(1)(e) sets forth the findings required in order
for the Planning Commission to approve a Height Variation. A discussion of these
findings (in bold type) follows:
1. The applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process
established by the city.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code requires the applicant to take all
necessary steps to consult with the property owners within 500 feet of the project
site. The City has established the following guidelines to conform with this
requirement: "[applicant must obtain] the signatures of at least 60% of the
landowners within 500 feet; or 70% of the landowners within 900 feet and 25% of the
total number of landowners within 500 feet (including those within 100 feet)..." With
N-14
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2011-00281)
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
PAGE 5
exception to the project site, there are 13 properties within 100 feet and 102 parcels
within 500 feet of the site, The applicant obtained 10 signatures from properties
within 100 feet (76%) and 26 signatures of landowners within 500 feet (25%) of the
project site. The applicant met the requirement to obtain signatures from at least
70% of the property owners within 100 feet and at least 25% of the property owners
within 500 feet. As such, this finding can be adopted.
2. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to
an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not significantly
impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways,
walkways or equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general
plan or coastal specific plan, as city -designated viewing areas.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, adopted June 26, 1975, identifies
viewing points (turnouts along vehicular corridors for the purposes of viewing) and
viewing sites (public site areas, which due to their physical location on the
Peninsula, provide a significant viewing vantage) within the City. Due to the location
of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structure is
not visible from a public viewing area or viewing site, as defined by the General
Plan. Additionally, the subject property is not located within the City's Coastal
Specific Plan, As such, the proposed structure will not impair a view, which has been
defined in the City's General Plan, or Coastal Specific Plan. Therefore, Staff feels
that this finding can be adopted.
3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory.
A ridge is defined as, "an elongated crest or a linear series of crests of hills, bluffs, or
highlands" (Section 17.96.1610 of the Municipal Code), A promontory is defined as,
"a prominent mass of land, large enough to support development, which overlooks
or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides" (Section
17.96,1480 of the Municipal Code). The proposed residence would be located on an
existing building pad, similar to other lots within the developed area, and is not
located on a prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or
body of water on two sides. As such, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted.
4. The area of a proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or an
addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height, as defined
in Section 17.02.040(B) of the Development Code, when considered exclusive
of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area
of another parcel.
Many residences along the north side of Bayridge Road have views of the Pacific
Ocean. The remaining residences located south and upslope of Bayridge Road and
subject property also have views of the Pacific Ocean in a southern direction. The
subject property is located more than 50 feet below the upslope properties along
Elmbank Rd, Only two residences (5427 and 5421 Elmbank Rd.) appeared to have
5
N-15
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2011-00281)
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
PAGE 6
the potential to incur view impacts from the proposed project. Staff visited these
properties on two separate occasions and left a note for the residents to call the City
if they had any concerns of views from the proposed project, Staff did not receive a
call or comment letter from these two property owners, and thus was not able to
access their rear yard or interior viewing areas. However, based on Staff's
assessment of the properties in relation to the proposed project, Staff believes that
the portion of the project over 16 feet in height would not significantly impair views
from these two upslope properties. Additionally, Staff spoke with the upslope
property owner of 5433 Elmbank Rd, who noted that the proposed project did not
impair her view of the Pacific Ocean. As such, Staff determined that the portions of
the proposed project which exceed 16'-0" do not significantly impair a protected view
from the viewing area of another parcel.
5. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is
determined not to be significant, as described in Finding No. 4, the proposed
new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing
structure that is above sixteen feet in height is designed and situated in such
a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view.
As explained in the previous finding (#4), Staff concluded that portions of the
proposed project which exceed the 16'-0" "by -right" height do not impair a protected
view. Nonetheless, the applicant has designed the second story addition to limit any
potential impacts by setting the second story addition toward the rear of the existing
residence so as not to impact the upslope neighboring properties along Elmbank Rd.
As such, this finding does not apply.
6. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by; (a)
considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the
proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a
structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) considering the amount
of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels
if similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height.
As explained in the previous finding (#4), Staff concluded that the portion of the
proposed project, which exceeds the 16'-0" "by -right" height limit, does not result in
any view impairment due to the topography in the neighborhood. Furthermore,
similar to the subject property, the four closest properties (5504, 5456, 5442 and
5436 Bayridge Rd) are also located more than 50-60 feet below the properties along
Elmbank Rd. Staff is of the opinion that construction of a second story addition to
these homes would not result in any view impairment to the properties above, along
Elmbank Rd. As such, Staff believes that no significant cumulative view impacts
would result as a result of the proposed project due to the extreme topography in the
four closest homes. As such, this finding can be made.
7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements.
N-16
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2011-00281)
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
PAGE 7
With the exception of the existing non -conforming front yard and east side yard
setbacks, the residence and proposed additions comply with the City's Development
Code standards with regard to setbacks, lot coverage and parking (also see project
statistics above). The new additions would meet the required 20'-0" front and 5'-0"
side yard setbacks, and would be well outside of the required 15'-0" rear yard
setback. Additionally, lot coverage for the subject property would include 4,101
square feet, or 39% of the 10,412 square foot pad lot. Therefore, as the proposal
complies with the standards set forth in the City's Development Code, this finding
can be made and adopted.
8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood
character.
Pursuant to Section 17.02.040.A.6, of the Municipal Code, "Neighborhood
Character" is defined to consider the existing physical characteristics of an area.
The factors to be analyzed per the code language are boldface, and Staff's analysis
is in normal type.
(1) Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot
coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures.
Compatibility with neighborhood character is based on a comparison to the other
structures in the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised of the twenty (20)
closest properties. The table below illustrates the 20 properties and structures that
comprise the immediate neighborhood and serve as the basis for neighborhood
compatibility. The homes analyzed, along with the lot size, structure size, and
number of stories, are listed below in the Neighborhood Compatibility Table.
Table 2: Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis
ADDRESS
LOT
SIZE
STRUCTURE
SIZE
NUMBER
OF
STORIES
5410 Bayridge Rd.�
7,812
1,725
1
5416 Bayridge Rd.
7,802
1,864
1
5417 gayridd e Rd.
7,153
2,143
1
5422 Bayridge Rd.
7,575
1,689
1
5423 Bayridge Rd,
7,037
2,452
1
5430 Bayridge Rd.
7,648
1,725
1
5431 Bayridge Rd,
7,414
1,6331
5436 Bayridge Rd.
9,365
1,904 _
1
5439 Bayridge Rd.
8,375
1,725
1
5442 Bayridge Rd.
10,684
2,410
1
5449 Bayridge Rd.
8,005
1,664
1
7
N-17
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2011-00281)
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
PAGE 8
. . .... . ........... ___ .............. . ...... .
j_5456 Bayridge Rd.
. .............-
8,273
1,916
- - - - ------- - - ----
1
15457 Bayridge ffq._
7,597
1,845
5504 Bavridcie Rd,
8,245
1,993
1
[_550T_§gridqe Rd.
7,571
2,1394
1
5510 Bayridge Rd.
8,244
1,634
1
. .... . ............... ....
15513 Bayridge Rd
7,601
1,616
............
1
5516 Bayridge Rd.
8,266
2,033
11
5421 Elmbank Rd.
l'
14,829
-
2,583
1
i�_427Elm-ba n k R d.
12 8 24
3,320
2
Average
8,616
n/a
.... . . . .......
BayridgeExisting
5448 Rd
Proposed
10,412
—
1,837
3,382
2
* The square footage for this residential property was documented from Assessors information as there was no
information available in the building permit file in the Community Development Department.
As noted in the table above, the immediate neighborhood is comprised of mostly
one-story homes, with the exception of one (1) two-story home along Elmbank. The
homes range in size from 1,616 square feet to 3,320 square feet, The proposed
addition will yield a 3,012 square foot residence with a 370 square foot garage for a
total structure size of 3,382 square feet. While the proposed residence is larger than
the average of the 20 closest homes and is 62 square feet larger than the largest
home in the immediate neighborhood, Staff is of the opinion that the structure has
been designed to reduce the visual impacts of a seemingly large residence, in terms
of structure size. For example, a majority of the residence is single story with
undulating facades and low, pitched roof structures. The second story footprint is
only 40% of the first story footprint and offers large setbacks from the front, east side
and west side property lines, 57'-6", 32'-6" and 9-6" respectively, Furthermore, the
proposed lot coverage (39%) is below the maximum allowable lot coverage in the
RS -5 zone (52% maximum lot coverage). As such, the proposed additions would not
create an anomaly, in terms of scale, and would thereby be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
(2) Architectural styles, including fagade treatments, structure height, open
space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the
structure, number of stories, and building materials.
The architectural style of the proposed additions would be similar in architectural
style to the existing residence and other residences found within the surrounding
neighborhood. The fagade treatments include a wood -shingle siding with composite
shingle roof materials, with stucco and wood siding accents. After surveying the 20
closest homes in the neighborhood, Staff concluded that the immediate area is
comprised of stucco -finished residences with wood siding accents, and composite
shingle or mission the roof materials. As such, Staff has concluded that the materials
10N•
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT --(CASE NO. ZON2011-00281)
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
PAGE 9
and treatments proposed for the residence can be found within, and are compatible
with, the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed addition has been designed to reduce
potential bulk and mass as seen from surrounding neighbors and/or the pubic right-
of-way. The applicant has designed the roofline of the second story with a hipped
and gable -end roof and provided undulating facades to limit the potential impacts of
a second story structure as seen from the neighboring properties to the east and
west, as well as the public right-of-way. Furthermore, the majority of the proposed
second story is setback from the front property line and neighboring properties.
Therefore, the bulk, mass, structure height, number of stories, and overall size of the
residence would not negatively impact the neighborhood's visual character and
would ultimately be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
(3) Front, side, and rear yard setbacks
According to the Development Code, structures shall maintain the following
minimum setbacks: 20 -foot front yard setback, 5 -foot side yard setback, and 15 -foot
rear yard setbacks. As stated above and under the project data, although the
existing residence has a non -confirming front and east side yard setback, the
proposed additions will meet the minimum setback standards established under the
RS -5 zoning district. As such, no deviation from the minimum setback requirements
is proposed, and the existing and proposed setbacks are consistent with other
setbacks in the immediate neighborhood.
Based on the analysis above, it is staffs opinion that the proposed "scale,
architectural style and materials, and front, side, and rear yard setbacks" are
consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. As such, staff feels
that this finding can be adopted.
9. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to
an existing structure that is above sixteen feet does not result in an
unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting
residences.
The Municipal Code defines privacy as, "reasonable protection from intrusive visual
observation." The Height Variation Guidelines state, "Given the variety and number
of options which are available to preserve indoor privacy, greater weight generally
will be given to protecting outdoor privacy than to protecting indoor privacy." Due to
the fact that property is located more than 50-60 feet below the properties to the
south, the only two properties that could potentially incur privacy impacts would be
the properties to the east and west. The applicant is utilizing windows along these
facades, but has proposed that the lower portion of the second -story windows will be
translucent. Although the applicant has proposed translucent windows to mitigate
privacy impacts, Staff has added additional conditions of approval to ensure that
privacy impacts are fully mitigated. Specifically, Staff has conditioned that the lower
9
N-19
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE NO. ZON%0i1-0D28i)
FEBRUARY 12.2O13
PAGE 10
half of the windows along the east and west facing second story fagades be fixed
and translucent. Therefore, Staff has determined that the proposed addition would
not create an unreasonable infringement to the privacy of the abutting residences
with the conditions noted above. As such, Staff feels that this finding can be
adopted.
Grading Permit
|Oorder to approve the Grading Permit, the Planning Commission must determine that
the request meets all nine criteria as set forth inMunicipal Code Section No. 17.76.040.
These criteria are listed below in bold type, with staff's analysis following.
1. The grading does not exceed that which ienecessary for the permitted primary
use ofthe lot, aadefined iuChapter 17.8Gofthe Municipal Code.
2. The proposed grading and/or na|mtod construction does not significantly
adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the viewing
area ofneighboring properties. |ncases where grading isproposed for nnew
residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied
when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building
footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant
to Section 17.02.040(8). is lower than wstructure that could have been built in
the oonmn location on the lot if measured from pre -construction (existing
grade).
3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural.
4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical
features and appearances by means ofland sculpturing ooasto blend any
man-made ormanufactured slope into natural topography.
5. For new o|uQ|e-fmnmi|y residences, the grading and/or related construction is
compatible with the immediate neigbborhood character, as defined In Chapter
17.02.
8. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation
and introduction of plant materials so as to prn1nu1 slopes from soil erosion
and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on
hillsides areas.
7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements, which serve [ominimize
grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of
the hillside.
8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the
natural landscape orwildlife habitat through removal ofvegetation.
9. Grading conforms to the standards for grading on o)npen, height ofcut and O|],
and height ofretaining walls,
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-- (CASE NO. ZON2011-00281)
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
PAGE 11
Municipal Code Section No. 17,96 defines the permitted primary use in the RS -5
zone as single-family residential. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed grading
(49.5 cubic yards) and retaining walls do not exceed that which is necessary for the
permitted primary use of the lot. The property was previously graded to
accommodate a new single-family residence. The proposed grading and retaining
walls allow the applicant to expand their rear yard and access to their rear yard
without being easily visible from the public right-of-way. Furthermore, in order to
soften the appearance of the proposed retaining walls along west side yard, the
applicant is restoring a small slope with a maximum gradient of 30%.
With regard to the natural landscape criteria above, based on the City's NCCP
vegetation maps, there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the
Subject property, which is a developed lot in a single-family residential
neighborhood. As such, the proposed project would not result in excessive or
unnecessary removal of sensitive vegetation.
Gradin a on slopes. equal to or exceeding 35%
Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% shall be allowed on recorded and
legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975, such as the subject
property. As such, the proposed grading is permitted and meets this criterion.
Finished slope contours
The Municipal Code limits the contours of finished slopes to no greater than 35%.
As noted above, the applicant is proposing to restore a small portion of the slope in
front of the west side yard retaining wall at a maximum slope of 30%. No finished
slopes that exceed 35% will be created. As such, the proposal meets this standard.
Excavation or Fill on a Slope exceeding 50% Gradient
The code states that no fill or cut shall be permitted on a slope exceeding 50%
gradient, unless the grading is on a 67% slope or greater. The proposed retaining
wall along the west side yard and in the rear yard will not occur on a slope greater
than 50%. As such, these retaining walls will meet this criterion.
Height of retaining walls
The Development Code allows one upslope retaining wall not to exceed 8'-0" in
height to be located outside of any front and/or street side setback area and one
downslope retaining wall, not to exceed a maximum height of 3'4', except when
located adjacent to a driveway, whereby a retaining wall may be constructed up to
5'-0". The proposed project includes the construction of a new upslope retaining wall
in the rear yard that will range in height from 5'-8" to 6'4% and a downslope retaining
wall along the west side property line that will reach a maximum height of T-6". A
small portion of the west side retaining wall, located adjacent to the driveway will
11
N-21
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-- (CASE NO. ZON2011-00281)
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
PAGE 12
range in height frorn 3'-6" up to 4'4'. As such, the proposed retaining walls meet this
criterion,
Site Plan Review
As described in Table I under the Project Description section of this report, Staff has
determined that the proposed additions would comply with the required residential
setback standards, lot coverage and the maximum allowable heights as presented in
the Development Code for the RS -5 zone, Specifically, the proposed additions will
provide a large front and east side setback which far -exceeds the minimum
requirements of the code. Further, as noted in the Height Variation findings above, the
additions will not create any significant impacts to the neighboring properties, will meet
the maximum allowable lot coverage of 52% (39% proposed) and will be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood. As the project meets all the required development
standards for a single-family residence, provided the Planning Commission finds the
new additions to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as discussed under
Height Variation Finding #8, Staff would recommend approval of the Site Plan Review,
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Foliage Analysis:
On January 9, 2013, Staff conducted a foliage analysis of the subject property, During
this analysis, Staff noted that no foliage on the applicant's property significantly impairs
the view from a viewing area of an adjoining property,
Public Notice:
As a result of the public notice, Staff received the attached correspondence from Rollin
Sturgeon, property owner at 5456 Bayridge Road, and Jason and Jane Butcher,
property owners at 5442 Bayridge Road, The property owners located to the east (the
Butcher's) relayed concerns with the second story windows that were being proposed.
As discussed earlier in this report, conditions of approval have been imposed to mitigate
the Butcher's concerns with privacy. With regard to the letters submitted by the neighbor
to the west (Mr, Sturgeon), concerns are raised regarding an unfinished slope within the
front setback. Staff has worked with the applicant and neighbor to reduce any potential
concerns and deviations from the code, Specifically, Mr. Sturgeon clarified in
discussions with Staff that he would not support any retaining walls that did not meet
code. The applicant has designed the retaining walls throughout the property, including
the walls within the front yard setback, to not exceed the heights permitted by the
development code. In addition, the applicant has noted that the fill in front of the side
retaining walls will not exceed a gradient of 30%. As such, the applicant has designed
the walls to meet the standards of the development code and assured that the
unfinished slope that currently exists will be supported by the new garden walls and
retaining walls,
12
N-22
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT -- (CASE NO. ZON2011-00281)
FEBRUARY 12, 2013
PAGE 13
CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis, Staff concludes that all of the required findings can be
adopted to conditionally approve the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan
Review for the proposed project, More specifically, Staff is concluding that the proposed
project meets all of the code requirements, does not create significant view impairment,
is compatible with the neighborhood, and does not create privacy impacts. As such,
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve, with conditions, the
Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00281).
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the
Planning Commission to act on:
1. Deny, without prejudice, the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan
Review (Case No. ZON2011-00281) and direct Staff to return to the next meeting
with a draft resolution.
2. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the
applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing
to a date certain.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Resolution No. 2013 -
Correspondence Letters
Project Plans
13
N-23
P.C. Draft Resolution.
(February 12, 2013 P.C. Meeting)
14
N-24
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF
A 412 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE,
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,560 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION, 370 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE, 49.5 CUBIC
YARDS OF GRADING AND NEW RETAINING WALLS
ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND REAR YARD.
LOCATED AT 5448 BAYRIDGE ROAD (CASE NO ZON2011-
00281).
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2011, the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Koch, submitted
applications for Planning Case No. ZON2011-00281 for a Site Plan Review to construct a
first story addition to the existing residence located at 5448 Bayridge; and,
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2011, Staff completed the initial review of the
application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete for processing.
Subsequently, the applicant submitted a revised project with a request for a Height
Variation and Grading Permit on December 1, 2011. The applicant submitted revisions on
multiple occasions; and,
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2013, the application for Planning Case
No. ZON2011-00281 was 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 the approval of the requested applications would
have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been
found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(e)(2)); 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 February 12, 2013, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND,
DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: With respect to the application for a Height Variation to allow the
construction of a new second story addition:
15
N-25
A. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process
established by obtaining 10 signatures from the properties within 100 feet (76%)
and 26 signatures from the property owners within 500 feet (25%) of the subject
property.
B. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that
exceeds sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public
property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails),
which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as
City -designated viewing areas. Specifically, due to the location of the property and
the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structure is not visible from a
public viewing area or viewing site and will therefore, not impair a view.
C. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that
exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject
property is located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood,
on an existing pad lot. The residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as
defined in the Municipal Code.
D. The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed new addition that is above
sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not
significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. Specifically, a
majority of the residences along the north side of Bayridge Road have expansive
views of the Pacific Ocean in a southbound direction. The remaining residences
located south and 50-60 feet upslope of Bayridge Road, along Elmbank Road, also
have views of the Pacific Ocean in a southward direction. A windshield survey did
not reveal any view impacts from neighboring properties. Staff also spoke with an
upslope neighbor (property owner of 5433 Elmbank Road) who noted that the
proposed project did not impair a protected view from her parcel.
E. The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed new structure that is above
sixteen feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonable
minimize the impairment of a view due to the fact that the second story addition
does not create a view impairment from a neighboring property.
F. The Height Variation is warranted since there is no significant cumulative view
impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall
be determined by: (a) considering the amount of view impairment that would be
caused by the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or
addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) considering the
amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other
parcels if similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. The
four closest homes (5504, 5456, 5442, and 5436 Bayridge Rd.) are also located
more than 50-60 feet below the properties along Elmbank Rd. Staff is of the opinion
P.C. Resolution No. 2013 -
Page 2 of 8
16
N-26
that construction of second story additions to these homes would not result in any
view impairment to the properties above.
G. With the exception of the existing legal, non -conforming front and east side yard
setbacks, the proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements,
including the development standards related to the RS -5 zoning district with respect
to lot coverage and setbacks, and the off-street parking requirements for single-
family residences.
H. The proposed addition is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in
terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style and bulk and mass.
The proposed lot coverage and setbacks are consistent with those of the
surrounding properties. The architectural style of the proposed residence would
maintain the architectural style found in the immediate neighborhood as well as the
existing residence by utilizing a stucco finish, tile roof materials, and wood siding,
similar to the materials found within the surrounding neighborhood. With regard to
the overall size of the residence, the proposed addition has been designed to
reduce potential bulk and mass as seen from neighboring properties by
incorporating hipped and gable -end roof structures, and undulating facades to break
up the appearance of the structure as seen from the street and other properties.
The Height Variation is warranted since the new addition, as conditioned, would not
create an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting
residences. The subject lot is located 50-60 feet below the properties along
Elmbank Rd. The only residences that could potentially incur privacy impacts would
be the properties directly to the east and west, However, the project includes
windows whereby the lower half of the windows along the east and west facing
facades will be translucent. Additional conditions of approval to ensure that privacy
impacts are fully mitigated have been added to the project approval. Specifically, the
conditions require that the lower half of the these windows be fixed and translucent.
Section 2: With regard to the Grading Permit;
A. The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot. Specifically, the underlying zoning district is single-family
residential and the property was previously graded to accommodate a new single-
family residence. The proposed grading (49.5 cubic yards of cut) and proposed
retaining walls and garden wall allow the applicant the ability to expand and provide
access to their rear yard.
B. The proposed grading does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships
with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. The proposed
grading and retaining walls will be located along the west side of the residence, in
P.C, Resolution No. 2013 -
Page 3 of 8
17
N-27
the side and rear yard and will not be easily visible from the public right-of-way or
neighboring properties,
C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural. The applicant is proposing to construct a
upslope retaining wall in the rear yard whereby no new contours will be created. The
applicant is also proposing a new 3'-6" tall retaining wall along the west side yard
and a 3-6" to 4'-0" tall retaining wall with a small slope restored in front of the
retaining wall at a maximum gradient of 30%.
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features
and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or
manufactured slope into natural topography, The grading would be limited to a small
area at the rear of the property and along the side yard and driveway. In order to
limit the visibility of the retaining wall, the applicant has proposed to restore a small
amount of the slope in front of the retaining wall with a slope of 30%, which is similar
to the slope that previously existing.
E. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence
of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property.
F. The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, cut and fill and
finished slope contours. Specifically, the proposed grading would not occur on an
extreme slope (35% or greater), the proposed grading will not significantly alter the
contours of the lot, and no finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created,
Section 4: The Site Plan Review Permit can be approved as the proposed project
will comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and the maximum
allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS -5 zone, Specifically,
the project will meet the maximum allowable lot coverage of 53% (39% proposed), is
compatible with the neighborhood and the proposed setbacks far exceed the minimum
required setbacks for residential lots.
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 17.02.040(C)(1)(g) 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) days
following February 27, 2013, 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
P.C. Resolution No. 2013 -
Page 4 of 8
IU;
0•
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Height
Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Planning Case No. ZON2011-00218) for
the demolition of the existing 412 square foot garage, and the construction of a new 590
square foot first floor addition, 970 square foot second floor addition and a new 370 square
foot attached garage. The approval also includes 49.5 cubic yards of grading for the
construction of new retaining walls along the rear and side yard located at 5448 Bayridge
Road, subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit W.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12'h day of February 2013, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSSALS:
ABSENT:
Paul Tetreault
Chairman
Joel Rojas, AICP
Community Development Director
Secretary to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2013 -
Page 5 of 8
Wel
N-29
EXHIBIT'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2011-00218
(Koch, 5448 Bayridge)
General Conditions:
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 listed below. Failure to
provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this
approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety pian check, the applicant
shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works for any curb
cuts, dumpsters in the street or any other temporary or permanent improvements
within the public rights-of-way.
3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.
4. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform
to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but
not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards.
5. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may
because to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures
contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code.
6. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the
approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section
17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of
the Notice of Decision, 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
Community Development Director and approved by the Director.
7. 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.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013 -
Page 6 of 8
NE
N-30
8. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed
in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED bythe Citywith the
effective date of the Notice of Decision.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets 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, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday
through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal
holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code. Trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining
public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with
the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition.
11. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
project shall maintain a maximum of 52% lot coverage (39% proposed) and the
following setbacks from the applicable property lines:
Front 20 feet (16'-7" existing, No Change)
Side East 5' feet (4'-7" existing, No Change)
Side West 5 feet (5'-3" proposed)
Rear 15 feet (30'-5" proposed)
12. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not
exceed 50%.
13. A minimum 2 -car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space
being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of
9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, with a minimum of 7 feet of vertical clearance.
14. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section
17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is
permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of
a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is
physically located.
15. All landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control
techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013 -
Page 7 of 8
21
N-31
16. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if
required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to
the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will
minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners.
17. All applicable permits required by the Building and Safety Division shall be obtained
by the applicant prior to the commencement of construction.
Height Variation Conditions:
18. This approval is for the demolition of an existing 412 square foot detached garage
and the construction of a new 590 square foot first floor addition, 970 square foot
second floor addition and new 370 square foot attached garage. The overall square
footage of the residence and garage will be 3,382. BUILDING AREA
CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED, A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR
SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BOLDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL PRIOR TO BULDING PERMIT FINAL.
19. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project will be 24'-9", as measured from the
lowest finished grade adjacent to the foundation of the structure to the highest
ridgeline and 22'-7.5", as measured from the highest existing grade covered by the
structure 22'-5 5/8" to the top of the highest ridgeline (elev. 122.625'). BUILDING
HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED,
Grading Permit Conditions
20. This approval allows a maximum of 49.5 cubic yards of grading to be located at
the rear and along the west side of the residence.
27, The following retaining walls are permitted:
a. A 3'-6" tall retaining wall along the west side property line
b. A T-6" to 4'-0" tall retaining wall along the west side of the driveway
c. A 5'-8" to 6'-9" tall retaining wall along within the rear yard
Privacy Impairment Mitigation Conditions
28. The second story windows located along the east and west facing fagades of the
proposed second story shall be fixed and translucent. Directly above each fixed
window, a clerestory window that can be opened is permitted. The bottom of the
clerestory window frames shall not be less than 5'-6" as measured from the
interior second story floor. Prior to submittal of plans into Building and Safety
Plan, the applicant shall provide revised plans illustrating these requirements.
P.C. Resolution No, 2013 -
Page 8 of 8
22
N-32
Prior to "final" on the Building Permit, the applicant shall notify the planner to
inspect these windows for compliance with this condition of approval.
P.C, Resolution No. 2013 -
Page 9 of 8
23
N-33
Public Correspondence
(February 12, 2013 P.C. Meeting)
24
N-34
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner -Planning Commission
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275-5391
Dear Leza,
August 4, 2012
RECEIVED
-'IlG 072012
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
It was a pleasure meeting with you the other day to show us the plans that Mr. and Mrs.
Koch submitted for approval..
In recent discussions with Mr. and Mrs. Koch it was discussed how privacy was our main
concern, however, we do not oppose the plan to build. The discussion was specifically to
change how the Koch's new addition will affect the privacy of our backyard and living
quarters as we have two young girls. We discussed using fixed opaque or clear story
windows to ensure that they would not be looking directly into our backyard and home.
Although, the Koch's stated that this would not be a problem and that they would modify
their plans to accommodate our issues, our concern is that the plan submitted to the city
did not reflect these changes. We again do not oppose the addition, however we need to
ensure that our privacy issues are addressed. We would like to request that fixed opaque
or clear story windows will be put in those second story locations to ensure our privacy.
The windows in question would be the three windows on the east side of the addition
facing our home on 5442 Bayridge Road.
We enjoy our outstanding relationship with the Koch.'s and truly hope this can be an easy
Fix,
Thank you for your assistance,
- J-11
Jason and .lane Butcher
5442 Bayridge Rd
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275
310-750-6088
25
N-35
Rollin Sturgeon
5456 Bayridge Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-3784345
February 2, 2012
Miss Leza Mikhail
Planning Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: 5448 Bayridge Rd. R.P.V., side yard project.
RECEIVED
09 2012
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
As currently proposed the grading and retraining wall for the above does not meet the here noted R.P.V.
building code requirements. Before project approval, might I again review the proposal?
Is .there any requirement that a property owner protect a created extreme slop from erosion and
subsidence? There are no cracks or repaired cracks in the wall of the garage located five feet from the
property line on the adjacent property.
17.76.030 — Fences Walls:
B.5, — To protect public safety (Requires a fence/surmounting retaining wall)
C.l.a.i. — Wall up to forty-two inches (Front).
b.iii. — Combined retaining wall and fence may not extend eight feed (Protective fence
required).
17.76.040 — Grading:
A.1. — Minimizing erosion, earth movement.
B. La. —Excavation in excess of twenty cubic yards,
D.2.a. — Existing and finished contours. (Existing would be prior to, not subsequent to,
unpermitted grading).
D.2.b. — Location of M structure within fifteen feet of grading.
D.2.c. — Cross-section retaining walls, cut slopes.
17.57.010 -- Only reasonable area for development.
Should not slope stabilization back fill be verifiably compacted?
Sincerely,
Rollin Sturgeon
26
N-36
r
27
N-37
CO
S
RECEIVED
0 a zolz
CotAMuNITY DMLOPMEt�T
DEPARTMENT
'Sf C T 10 1\4 AT t:RO 1\1 T,�
-A 416 E3�\Y RkDC-�-
"
-lo 6
F x p
13
N-39
30
N-40
LQ
L
)J!
ul
LQ
L
N-41
)J!
N-41
F IEB 0 6 2012
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
74 (
J
p
32
N-42
NOV 2 2 2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
�47
-74
62-
lz-`
X,
41oe,6(1
'77
Lt4
ed"
33
N-43
34
N-45
r4
1/,
)7 ly(
"124
—41
-;31 T
116
N-45
"124
—41
-;31 T
116
N-45
N-46
al
� �
(
!
�
/:
.���
.�2_./
34
N-46