Loading...
CC SR 20150203 01 Public Hearing Appeal PC Height Variation ZON2014-00064CITYOF RANCHO PUBLIC HEARING PALOS VERDES Date: February 3, 2015 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review for a Proposed First and Second Story Addition to the Existing Residence located at 6321 Villa Rosa (Case No. ZON2014- 00064) Subject Property: 6321 Villa Rosa 1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 2. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Knight 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Associate Planner Mikhail 4. Public Testimony: Appellants: Peachtree Family Trust (Sam Hassan) Applicant: Same as above 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Knight 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: CITYOF MEMORANDUM lLiRANGHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMM IY EVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2015 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED FIRST- AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6321 VILLA ROSA (CASE NO. ZON2014-00064) REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER(' F) Project Planner: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2015-_, approving an appeal by the applicant to overturn the Planning Commission's decision, thereby approving a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2012-00064) to allow the construction of a new one- and two-story addition to the residence located at 6321 Villa Rosa 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 a development application. The specific findings of fact are listed and discussed in the "Discussion" portion of the Staff Report. BACKGROUND On December 16, 2014, the City Council conducted an appeal hearing to review a two-story project that was denied by the Planning Commission. After hearing a mixture of public testimony for and against the project, a majority of the City Council agreed that the project did not create any significant privacy or view impacts to neighboring properties. However, a majority of the City Council did note some minor concerns with the overall size of the structure and thus, directed 1-2 the applicant to explore a reduction in the project size by at least 200 square feet along the east fagade, and an increase the overall east side yard setback so that the first and second floors do not extend any closer to the east property line than what currently exists. As such, on a 5-0 vote, the City Council continued the public hearing to the February 3, 2015 meeting to provide the applicant/appellant with an opportunity to make the desired project changes. The applicant's revised plans are now being presented to the City Council for consideration. DISCUSSION Modification to the Proposed Project In response to suggestions and comments made by the City Council at the December 16, 2014 City Council meeting to slightly redesign the project to address structure size concerns, the applicant has provided the following modifications to the overall design of the project: • A reduction in the overall size of the house from 3,841 square feet to 3,576 square feet, (garage included) for a total reduction of 265 square feet by: o Reducing the total first floor addition area from 471 square feet to 292 square feet (reduction of 179 square feet) o Reducing the total second floor addition area from 1,532 square feet to 1,446 square feet (reduction of 86 square feet) • An increase in the east side first floor setback from 6.3' to 11.7' • An increase in the east side second floor setback from 9.3' to 12.4' • A window along rear fagade is changed to opaque In addition to the abovementioned modifications, at the request of Councilman Campbell, the HVAC units that were previously located along the west side of the property were relocated to the north side of the property in the rear yard. As noted in the attached, December 16, 2014 Staff Report, the Planning Commission denied the proposed project because of neighborhood compatibility concerns. Specifically, the Planning Commission determined that the square footage of the proposed project would create excessive bulk and mass issues and would be the second largest home on the second smallest lot. In addition, some neighbors also felt that the original project is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Notwithstanding, Staff felt that the proposed project denied by the Planning Commission was compatible with the immediate neighborhood because the proposed project would not exceed the largest residence in the neighborhood and was redesigned to provide heavily articulated facades. The applicant also reduced the overall square footage of the second story footprint of the second floor, and provided second -story setbacks to soften the appearance of the structure as seen from the street and neighboring properties. Additionally, the overall height of the residence was reduced from 25-5" to 22'-7", further minimizing the overall bulk and mass of the structure to a less than significant level. Staff believes the revised project before the City Council is even more compatible with the immediate neighborhood since the applicant further increased the first and second story setbacks along the east side of the residence and further reduced the overall square footage of the residence without compromising the architectural design and compatibility of the home. 1-3 Given that the applicant addressed the concerns raised by the City Council by providing the abovementioned modifications to the design, Staff believes that the applicant has provided a design that is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Thus, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the appeal, thereby overturning the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, and adopt the attached Resolution affirming the decision. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Fee Waiver As noted in the December 16, 2014 City Council Staff Report and in P.C. Resolution No. 2014- 24, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council waive the $2,275 appeal fee that the applicant/appellant is required to pay. Although Staff originally recommended in December 2014 that the City Council deny the Fee Waiver request, in light of the City Council's direction to the applicant to redesign the project to make some minor changes, if the City Council approves the appeal, the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project will be overturned and the applicant will receive a full refund of their appeal fee, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.80.120. Public Comments Additional comment letters that have been received since December 16, 2014 are attached to this staff report. The letters relay the same concerns with neighborhood compatibility, privacy impacts and view impairment expressed previously to Staff and the Planning Commission. These issues are addressed in the Staff Reports and Minutes of the Planning Commission, as well as the December 16, 2014 City Council Staff Report. As noted throughout the record, the Planning Commission and City Council ultimately determined that the project did not create significant individual or cumulative view impacts, or privacy impacts to the neighboring properties. The Planning Commission's sole reason for project denial was due to continued neighborhood compatibility concerns. Based on the direction of the City Council, the applicant/appellant is requesting that the City Council consider approving a revised project that meets the concerns of the City Council. CONCLUSION Given that the applicant has provided modifications that address the concerns raised bythe City Council, Staff recommends that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, thereby conditionally approving the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review, and adopt a Resolution affirming the decision. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the City Council to consider: 1) Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00064) without prejudice, and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next City Council meeting with an appropriate Resolution; or, 1-4 2) Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00064) with prejudice, and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next City Council meeting with an appropriate Resolution. This option would not allow the property owner to submit an application for a substantially similar two-story addition for one year; or, 3) Remand the revised project back to the Planning Commission; or, 4) Hear public testimony this evening, identify any additional 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 subsequent City Council meeting. 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. ATTACHMENTS • C.C. Draft Resolution No. 2015-_ (Approval) • Correspondence Letters for February 16, 2015 City Council Staff Report • December 16, 2014 City Council Staff Report • Late Correspondence from December 16, 2014 meeting • Letter of Appeal to the City Council (received September 24, 2014 • Project Plans NOTE: The following attachments from the December 16, 2014 Staff Report are not included with this report as they were previously provided to the City Council. If any Council Members wish to view these previous attachments, they can be found on the City's website under Public Hearing Item #1 of the December 16, 2014 City Council Agenda. • Correspondence Letters for December 16, 2014 City Council meeting • P.C. Resolution No. 2014-24 (Denial) • P.C. Minutes of September 9, 2014 meeting • P.C. Staff Report (September 9, 2014) o Late Correspondence from September 9, 2014 meeting • P.0 Minutes of August 26, 2014 meeting • P.C. Staff Report (August 26, 2014) o Late Correspondence from August 26, 2014 meeting o Public Correspondence since August 12, 2014 P.C. meeting o August 12, 2014 P.C. Staff Report o Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ (Approval) o Public Correspondence since July 8, 2014 P.C. meeting • P.C. Minutes of July 8, 2014 meeting • P.C. Staff Report (July 8, 2014) o Late Correspondence from July 8, 2014 meeting o Public Correspondence since May 27, 2014 P.C. meeting • P.C. Minutes of May 27, 2014 • P.C. Staff Report (May 27, 2014) 0 Late Correspondence from May 27, 2014 meeting C.C. Draft Resolution No. 2015 - (Approval) 1-6 RESOLUTION NO. 2015- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION, AND APPROVING THE APPEAL, THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 292 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY ADDITION, 1,446 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY ADDITION, 48 SQUARE FOOT BALCONY AT THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE, 4'-0" TALL RETAINING WALL AND 52.97 CUBIC YARDS OF ASSOCIATED GRADING, ON AN EXISTING LOT LOCATED AT 6321 VILLA ROSA (CASE NO. ZON2014-00064). WHEREAS, on February 10, 2014, the applicant submitted a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application to the Community Development Department requesting approval of a one and two-story addition to an existing one-story single-family residence, and a 4'-0" tall retaining wall with associated grading to accommodate the project; and, WHEREAS, on February 27, 2014, the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, on March 14, 2014, March 20, 2014, March 25, 2014 and April 17, 2014, the applicant submitted additional information and revised plans; and, WHEREAS, on April 21, 2014, Staff deemed the project complete; 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 ZON2014-00008 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Section 15303), since the project involves construction of an addition to an existing residence on a legally subdivided lot; and, WHEREAS, on May 27, 2014, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, 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. Given concerns raised regarding neighborhood compatibility, view impairment, and privacy impacts, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 8, 2014, to allow the applicant time to address the concerns raised by Staff, the Planning Commission and the public; and, 1-7 WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the applicant submitted revised plans to the Community Development Department to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. The revisions included the elimination of the second story addition over the garage, an increase in the rear yard setback from 19'-3" to 33'-8", elimination of balconies along the rear fagade of the second story addition, clerestory windows and one (1) standard window along the rear fagade of the second story, reduction in ceiling heights from 9'-0" to 8'-0" on the second floor, reduction in the roof pitch from 4:12 to 2.5:12, reduction in the square footage from 4,452 square feet to 3,886 square feet, reduction in the structure height from 25'-5" to 23'-7" and second story setbacks from the first floor; and, WHEREAS, on July 8, 2014, the Planning Commission heard public testimony and considered the merits of the revised project submitted by the applicant. The Planning Commission determined that the revised project continued to create cumulative view impairment impacts to 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. and bulk and mass impacts due to the overall height and overall size of the structure. Given the continued concerns, after discussing potential design revision options with the applicant at the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 12, 2014, to allow the applicant time to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on July 21, 2014, the applicant submitted revised plans to the Community Development Department to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. The revisions included an additional reduction in structure height from 23'-7" to 22'-7, an increased side yard setback from 5'-0" to 6'-3", and a further reduced structure size from 3,886 square feet to 3,841 square feet; and, WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 26, 2014 without discussion on the merits of the project; and, WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission heard public testimony and considered the merits of a project. Based on discussion at the August 26, 2014 hearing, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and directed Staff to return to the September 9, 2014 meeting with a Resolution to deny the project. The Planning Commission determined that the project is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character as it creates bulk and mass impacts to the neighborhood. More specifically, the Planning Commission determined that the project was the second largest home in the neighborhood on the second smallest lot, and due to the overall square footage of the revised project, the residence would be out of character with the immediate neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, a representative for the property owner at 6321 Villa Rosa, David Moss, submitted a timely appeal letter of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the proposed second story addition. The appeal letter stated the grounds Resolution No. 2015 - Page 2 of 12 of the appeal, noting that the Appellant (Applicant) is aggrieved by the Planning Commission's decision, and the Planning Commission erred in its decision for the reasons set forth in the appeal letter; and, WHEREAS, on November 6, 2014, Staff mailed notices for a City Council appeal hearing to 206 property owners within a 500 -foot radius from the subject property, and all interested parties, 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 November 6, 2014; and, WHEREAS, on December 16, 2014, the City Council considered the merits of the appeal, heard public testimony, provided the appellant (applicant) with direction to redesign the project, and continued the public hearing to February 3, 2015; and, WHEREAS, on January 15, 2015, the applicant submitted a redesigned project to address the concerns raised by the City Council by making the following revisions to the project: 1) A reduction in the overall size of the house from 3,841 square feet to 3,576 square feet (garage included), for a total reduction of 265 square feet; 2) an increase in the east side first floor setback from 6.3' to 117; 3) an increase in the east side second floor setback from 9.3' to 12.4'; and 4) a window along the rear fagade that is opaque; and, WHEREAS, on February, 3, 2016, the City Council considered the merits of the appeal, and heard additional public testimony; 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 makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a Height Variation to allow the construction of a 1,446 square foot two- story addition: A. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process established by the City by sending a copy of the plans, via certified mail, to the property owners within a 500 foot radius. After multiple attempts to obtain the required number of signatures, the applicant requested permission from the Community Development Director to proceed with an alternative method because the applicant was only able to obtain 5 signatures from property owners within a 100 -foot radius (35%) and 9 signatures from property owners within a 500 -foot radius (4%). This includes the applicant's holding of an open -house on April 12, 2014 to obtain additional signatures. As such, on April 17, 2014, the applicant sent a copy of the plans, via certified mail, to the property owners within a 500 foot radius who did not sign the "acknowledgement of early neighbor consultation." Resolution No. 2015 - Page 3 of 12 1-9 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 have 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, is not located in the City's Coastal Zone, and will, therefore, not impair a public 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. The proposed project would not significantly impair the views from a majority of the surrounding residences due to the topography in the immediate neighborhood, lot configurations, and existing development. While the project would create some view impairment from two properties located at 27925 and 27931 Alvarez, the impairment is less than significant as a majority of the horizon line and ocean views from the viewing areas (living rooms) of these properties would be maintained with the revised project. More specifically, the project was redesigned to significantly reduce the second story side fagade, which is the fagade seen from the properties along Alvarez Dr. By eliminating portions of the second story addition and covered balconies, a large portion of the second story footprint that was impairing Pacific Ocean views was eliminated. Furthermore, the overall height of the second story addition was reduced by 2'-10", to a maximum height of 22'-7". The reduction in the overall height of the structure and the reduction in the second story footprint allows the majority of the narrow band of ocean view and horizon line to be maintained as seen from the properties along Alvarez Dr. As such, the view impairment from these properties is less than significant. F. The Height Variation is warranted because the residence has been redesigned in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of view. The project was redesigned to reduce the overall height of the two story addition from 25-5" to 22'- 7", thereby resulting in a 2'-10" reduction in structure height. This modification was achieved by reducing the ceiling heights from 9'-0" to 8'-0" and reducing the roof pitch from 4:12 to 2.5:12. As such, the applicant has redesigned the residence in such a manner as to reasonably minimize view impacts. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 4 of 12 1-10 E. 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 of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. A view analysis was conducted from the primary viewing area (living room) of three (3) properties located at 27919, 27925, and 27931 Alvarez Dr., where potential view impacts were observed. In order to address this finding, an assessment was conducted of the amount of cumulative view impairment that would be caused to these properties if a similar addition over 16'-0", such as the proposed project, was also constructed on other nearby properties. According to the City's Height Variation Guidelines, the assessment did not extend beyond four (4) parcels nearest to the subject property. Based on the existing neighborhood, the four (4) closest properties to the applicant are located at 6315 Villa Rosa, 6309 Villa Rosa, 6303 Villa Rosa and 6320 Rio Linda. Given the number of design modifications including, but not limited to, reducing the structure height by 2'-10", significantly reducing the second story side fagade of the addition, and increasing the second story setbacks, the revised project does not create a cumulative view impairment from the three properties along Alvarez Dr., even if the four other properties on Villa Rosa were expanded with additions that are similar to the proposed addition. F. 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. G. 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 immediate neighborhood is comprised of both one and two story homes that range in size from 1,942 square feet to 4,612 square feet. As such, the proposed residence (3,576 square feet) will not exceed the largest home in the neighborhood. Additionally, the project has been redesigned to reduce the overall square footage and second story footprint of the second floor, and to provide second -story setbacks to soften the appearance of the structure as seen from the street and neighboring properties. The east side yard setback has been increased from 6.3' to 11.7' to reduce the overall scale of the project as seen from the street and easterly neighboring property, and the square footage of the residence was reduced from 3,841 square feet to 3,576 square feet in order to meet compatibility concerns raised by the City Council. Additionally, the applicant previously redesigned the project to reduce the overall height of the structure from 25'-5" to Resolution No. 2015 - Page 5 of 12 22'-7", which minimized the overall bulk and mass of the structure to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the project was previously redesigned with a hipped roof and second story setbacks to reduce the bulk and mass of the structure. H. The Height Variation is warranted since the new second story addition would not create an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. In response to concerns expressed by the Planning Commission regarding potential privacy impacts to the neighboring property located at 6320 Rio Linda., the applicant redesigned the project to mitigate potential privacy impacts. The applicant has removed the rear yard balconies and increased the rear yard setback by 14'-0", resulting in a 33'-8" rear yard setback to the second story facade. Additionally, the applicant has only provided one standard window along the rear fagade that is setback 35'-11" from the rear property line, with the remaining windows proposed as clerestory windows. Given the increased rear yard setback and revised window designs, the revised project would not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy to the neighboring property located at 6320 Rio Linda. Section 2: The City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a 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 applicant is proposing to excavate 52.97 cubic yards of dirt along the east side property line and constructing a new 4'-0" tall retaining wall, similar to other grading projects found throughout the residential neighborhood to accommodate walkways along the side property lines. B. The proposed grading does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. One retaining wall will be located along the east side property line and will not be easily visible from neighboring properties. C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours as the applicant is not proposing to alter the existing contours found on the property. The applicant is constructing one 4'-0" tall retaining wall by cutting into the transitional slope along the east side property line to provide access along the east side of the residence. D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by limiting the grading to the existing pad area. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 6 of 12 1-12 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. G. The 4'-0" tall retaining wall along the east side yard can be supported above a height of 3'-6" as the retaining wall would provide a reasonable development of land as noted in Section 17.76.040 of the Municipal Code. Approving the deviations to the grading standards allows the applicant to provide a retaining wall that is similar to other retaining walls found throughout the neighborhood. In order to ensure that no visual impacts are created from the new retaining wall, a condition of approval was included to ensure that landscaping and small shrubs in front of the retaining wall are maintained at the front of the residence to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Further, allowing the deviations to the grading to allow retaining walls at or near 4'-0" in height are common within the hillside neighborhood. Approval of the retaining wall would not constitute a special privilege regarding the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity due to the hillside topography. Further, the retaining wall would not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other properties as the City's geotechnical consultant will be required to approve a soil engineering report for the grading and retaining walls. Section 3: With regard to the Site Plan Review, the proposed 292 square foot first floor addition 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. Further, as noted in the Height Variation findings above, the addition will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 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 5: Based on the additional revisions to the project that were made to address the City Council's concerns, and 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 overturns the Planning Commission's decision, and approves the appeal, thereby conditionally approving a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Planning Case No. ZON2014- 00064) for the construction of a new 292 square foot first floor addition, 1,446 square foot Resolution No. 2015 - Page 7 of 12 1-13 second floor addition, and a 4'-0" tall retaining wall with 52.97 cubic yards of associated grading 6321 Villa Rosa., subject to the Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit'A'. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 31d day of February 2015, 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. 2015-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on February 3, 2015. City Clerk Resolution No. 2015 - Page 8 of 12 1-14 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2014-00061 (HV, GR, SPR) (Peachtree Family Trust, 6321 Villa Rosa Rd.) 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 contained in this Resolution. 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 conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 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 Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body (City Council) that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. 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. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 7. 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 Resolution No. 2015 - Page 9 of 12 1-15 this Resolution, 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 Department and approved by the Director. 8. 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. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans reviewed by the City Council on February 3, 2015 and the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 10. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non -conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non -conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped APPROVED plans. 11. 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. 12. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:00PM on 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. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 13. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 52% lot coverage (47.1 % proposed). 14. The approved additions shall maintain setbacks as depicted on the APPROVED plans for both the first and second floor additions. BUILDING SETBACK Resolution No. 2015 - Page 10 of 12 1-16 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 15. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 16. A minimum 2 -car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9' in width and 20' in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance. 17. 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. 18. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 19. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 20. No more than 50% of any existing interior and exterior walls or existing square footage may be removed or demolished. Residential buildings that are remodeled or renovated such that 50% or greater of any existing interior or exterior walls or existing square footage is demolished or removed within a two-year period shall be considered a new residence and shall then conform to all current development standards for that zoning district and the most recently adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the project's compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 and the City Municipal Code requirements regarding wood -burning devices. Project Specific Conditions: 22. This approval is for a 3,576 square -foot, 2 -story single-family residence, which includes a 404 square -foot 2 -car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION Resolution No. 2015 - Page 11 of 12 1-17 REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. 23. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 128.60'. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the lowest Finished Grade Elevation at 106.02'. 24. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 14'-6'/2" front (existing), 33'-8" rear, 7'-6'/4 ' west side and 10'-1" east side. BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 25. This project includes a 4'-0" tall retaining wall along the east side property line with a total of 52.97 cubic yards of excavation to accommodate side yard access. Portions of the retaining wall that are located within the 20'-0" front yard setback shall not exceed a maximum height of 3'-6" in height. Prior to submittal of plans into Building and Safety Plan Check, the applicant shall submit revised plans to the Community Development Department reflecting the height of the retaining wall within the front yard setback. 26. Prior to final on the Building Permit, the applicant shall install and maintain shrubs in front of the new 4'-0" tall retaining wall, for portions of the retaining wall that are visible from the street, to screen said retaining wall to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 27. (Privacy Mitigation) The windows along the rear fagade of the second story shall be installed and maintained as depicted in the APPROVED plans. 28. (Privacy Mitigation) Balcony's of any size at the rear facade of the second story shall not be allowed without obtaining a revision to this project by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 12 of 12 1-18 Correspondence Letters (for February 16, 2015 City Council Staff Report) 1-19 Leza Mikhail From: Jim Kohler <jim_kohler@aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:50 PM To: CC Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: : Case ZON2014-00064 Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, We are contacting you to voice our opposition to the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a variance in case ZON2014-00064. A significant portion of the community has attended all four of the scheduled Planning Commission Meetings. The local residents discussed their concerns regarding the following issues: o Bulk and Mass - the second largest home (3,841 square feet) on the second smallest lot. o Neighborhood Compatibility - the proposed project is not compatible with surrounding homes. o View Infringement - the project impacts the ocean views from the homes on Alvarez Drive. o Privacy - the project would raise privacy issues for the surrounding homes. The Planning Commission has invested considerable time evaluating the project as it relates to the RPV civic code and the guide lines defined in Measure M and rightly concluded that it does NOT conform to the code and the spirit of the law. To overturn their decision would require the council members to ignore the commission's careful deliberations, Measure M, our city's civil code and the will of the city's residents! Such an action would clearly undermine the voter's confidence in city government. Jim and Evelyn Kohler jim kohler(a aol.com Jim jim_kohler@aol.com 1-20 leza Mikhail From: Vincent Liu <vince88168@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:28 PM To: CC Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Supporting the denial decision of the Planning Commission on Case# ZON2014-00064 Dear Members of City Council, I am the owner of the house at 6320 Villa Rosa Drive for the last 23 years, and I am writing this to support the denial decision of the Planning Commission on Case# ZON2014-00064. After reviewing the modified design, I would like to ask the honorable City Council to support the denial decision of the Height Variation by the Planning Commission based on the followings: 1. The redesign still infringe the privacy of neighbors. 2. The redesign is still incompatible with the neighborhood. 3. 1 strongly recommend a redesign of one story structure with 3,576 square feet including garage. Thank you very much. Best Regards, Vincent Liu Owner/Resident at 6320 Villa Rosa Drive 1-21 Leza Mikhail From: William Sheh <wsheh@tectoweld.com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:23 AM To: CC Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Importance: High Dear RPV Council Members, As the scheduled date of the upcoming hearing is fast approaching, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my support for the planning commission's original decision to deny the variance application for a 2nd story addition to the existing property. 1 am also asking for your support to also uphold the hard work of the planning commission. This area of Los Verdes Hills was carefully planned, designed and built out as an area of gently terraced lots with modest single story homes. Each lot had great light, air and fantastic visual impact when gazing out towards the horizon to the west and southwest. The fantastic "light and air" of the area is probably one of the most significant contributing factors in people wanting to live here. It certainly was for me. I moved back to RPV to raise my family after over a decade overseas. I've seen many other families move into the area with the exact same intentions. I see them walking with their kids and dogs in the neighborhood. Our children attend the same excellent schools we have. We are proud of our homes. We maintain our properties constantly. Over the years I've improved and updated my house so that it has the state of the art electrical safety features, fiber optic communications capabilities, computer networking capacity. The interior of the home upgraded latest and best to reflect my personal style and living comforts while at the same time upholding the original exterior style and dimensions of the house. Several other families may have bigger space requirements and they have managed to increase their living area by nearly 1000q ft by beautifully designing and constructing additional space on one floor without resorting to any sort of illegal garage conversions. Well done expansions never raise any sort of oppositions from the neighbor as it does not impose any unreasonable changes on the neighbors' existing views, space and physical environment. I believe it was in this spirit that Measure M was originally created so that "neighborhood compatibility" was maintained. The proposed 2 story exceeds the compatibility of this neighborhood. To argue that there are other 2 story houses already on this street is an invalid argument as those other structures pre -date Measure M. Measure M was created to prevent such incompatible homes from further blighting the neighborhood. Please uphold the planning commission denial of this project for a 2 story addition. Sincerely, William Shell 6315 Villa Rosa Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes 1-22 Leza Mikhail From: dellandsteve@cox.net Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 9:52 PM To: Leza Mikhail To: City Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Cc: Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: F. Stephen Nash, 6334 Rio Llnda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA (310) 377-7911 dellandsteve@cox.net Date: January 25, 2015 Subject: Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Dear honorable Members of the city Council, My wife and I strongly urge the members of the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation which was requested by the Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa, Rancho Palos Verdes. The Proposed two story design is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood, it blocks views and infringes on privacy. Having been a real estate appraiser for 34 years I can also attest that the proposed two story home will have a negative impact on the values of the homes in the vicinity. 1-23 Leza Mikhail From: Akemichi Yamada <akemichi@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 2:15 PM To: Leza Mikhail Subject: Comments on Case #ZON2014-00064 Attachments: Impacts of Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa_2015_01_25_AYd.pdf Reference: CC Hearing, Case #ZON2014-00064 Dear Ms. Liza Mikhail, I am again providing my comments on Case #ZON2014-00064, requesting the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application by Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa. Please take my comments into your consideration, and include my comments in the staff report. Sincerely, Akemichi Yamada 6320 Rio Linda Dr. 310-544-4525 1-24 To: City Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Cc.: Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: Akemichi Yamada, 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-544-4525, aketttiehi(a-%verizon.tict Date: January 25, 2015 Subject: Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa. Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Dear Honorable Members of City Council, I respectfully request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application by Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa. This neighborhood is located on a unique sloping terrain. Single -story houses are cleverly arranged to provide ocean views and privacy. A proposed two-story design is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood because it blocks views and infringes on privacy. Infringement of our privacy by the proposed two-story is a serious issue. We like to preserve our privacy that we have enjoyed last 22 years. It is difficult to solve the privacy problem by planting trees, because it takes a long time to grow trees to be tall enough to provide adequate privacy and because trees are not reliable means to provide privacy year around. Tall trees will block ocean views of neighbors. We lost a half of the ocean view from our kitchen window because of the two- story house that was built on Villa Rosa before Measure M was approved as shown in photos 1 and 2 below. If this proposed two-story is built, we will lose our privacy as shown in Photo 3 below. Two-story houses in the neighborhood create many serious and damaging problems. Page 1 of 3 1-25 Photo 1, Ocean view toward Northwest from our kitchen window. Photo 2, Ocean view toward Southwest is blocked by the 2 -story house. Page 2 of 3 1-26 Direct view from 3 windows 48"x48", 36"x24" & 48"x24" Photo taken at approx. 45 feet from the windows Locations and sizes of windows shown are approximate. Photo 3, View from our backyard toward the proposed two-story at 6321 Villa Rosa Page 3 of 3 1-27 Leza Mikhail From: Kevin <kevin@c2services.com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:02 AM To: CC Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Height variation at 6321 Villa Rosa Attachments: Hamilton City Council Letter 01-25-15.pdf Dear Council Members, Please find attached letter with comments regarding the Height Variation request for 6321 Villa Rosa. Thank you for your consideration. Kevin Hamilton 1-28 Date: January 25, 2014 To: City Council cc: Leza Mikhail City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Kevin Hamilton & Mary Beth Corrado 6309 Villa Rosa Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Dear Council Members, We appreciate you listening to our concerns at the December 16, 2014 City Council meeting. After reviewing the revised plans, Mary Beth and I request that the Council support the Planning Commission decision and deny the Height Variation request by Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa. Our major concerns remain and are summarized below. 1. Excessive bulk and mass 2. The architecture is incompatible with the neighborhood 3. The structure is not in "Character" with the original development or with existing homes today. 4. Violation of Privacy 5. Destruction of views, streetscape & open air space 6. Presents a cumulative view violation 7. Density and parking 8. Property devaluation 9. Over 70 residents in the neighborhood have requested that the City Council deny the Height Variation request. 1-29 December 16, 2014 C.C. Staff Report 1-30 CFFY OF MEMORANDUM lLiRANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COM I DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: DECEMBER 16,201 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED FIRST- AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6321 VILLA ROSA (CASE NO. ZON2014-00064) REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING C111Y MANAGER 09& op Project Planner: Leza Mikhail, Associate Plann r RECOMMENDATION 1) Open the public hearing, receive testimony from the Appellant and neighbors, consider the merits of the appeal and make a determination regarding the appeal so that Staff can bring back a resolution memorializing the Council's decision at a future Council meeting; and, 2) Deny, via Minute Order, the Planning Commission's recommendation to waive the $2,275 appeal fee paid by the applicant to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. 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 a development application. The specific findings of fact are listed and discussed in the "Discussion" portion of the Staff Report. BACKGROUND On February 10, 2014, the applicant submitted a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application to the Community Development Department requesting approval to construct 1-31 a one and two-story addition, totaling 2,614 square feet, to an existing 1,838 square foot (404 square foot garage included) one-story single-family residence, and a 4'-0" tall retaining wall with associated grading to accommodate the project. Pursuant to the Development Code, the application required Planning Commission review and approval. Below is a summary of the various meetings conducted by the Planning Commission on the subject application: May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting On May 27, 2014, 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. Based on the design originally presented to the Planning Commission, Staff recommended denial of the project due to neighborhood compatibility concerns, view impairment impacts to nearby residents, and potential privacy impacts. As noted in the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes (attached), Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue the proposed project to allow the applicant additional time to redesign the project to mitigate the identified impacts. The Planning Commission agreed with Staff's assessment and continued the public hearing to July 8, 2014 to allow the Applicant time to modify the design of the project to address Staff's and the Planning Commission's concerns related to view impairment, bulk and mass, and privacy impacts. July 8, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting On July 8, 2014, a revised design was presented to the Planning Commission based on direction from the Planning Commission on May 27, 2014. While the revised design addressed Staff's initial concerns with neighborhood compatibility and privacy, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to allow the applicant time to further redesign the project to address Staff's continued concern with the proposed project's impacts to cumulative view impairment as seen from some nearby neighbors. As noted in the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission minutes (attached), after hearing public testimony and discussing the merits of the revised project, the Planning Commission felt that the revised project continued to create both cumulative view impairment and neighborhood compatibility impacts. In an effort to allow the applicant additional time to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's continued concerns, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 12, 2014. Due to the breadth and scope of the items on the August 12, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda, the Planning Commission continued, without any discussion, the public hearing to August 26, 2014. August 26, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting On August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission heard public testimony and considered the additional revisions to the design of the project to address the neighborhood compatibility and cumulative view impairment concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Staff presented the revised design to the Planning Commission with a determination that the revised project had addressed Staff's previous cumulative view impact concerns. Since all of Staff's concerns had been addressed, Staff's recommendation was that the Planning Commission determine whether it's previous neighborhood compatibility concerns had been adequately addressed. After considering the revised design and additional testimony by neighbors, a motion to approve the revised project failed on a 3-4 vote, with Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, James and Chairman Leon dissenting. A second motion 1-32 to deny the project, without prejudice, passed on a 6-1 vote, with Commissioner Nelson dissenting. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and directed Staff to return to the September 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting with a Resolution reflecting the Planning Commission's final decision to deny the project based on neighborhood compatibility concerns. September 9, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting On September 9, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-24 (attached), thereby formally denying the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review applications, without prejudice, on a 3-2 vote, with Commissioner's Cruikshank and Vice - Chairman Nelson dissenting, and Commissioner Tomblin and Chairman Leon absent. Appeal to the City Council by the Applicant (now Appellant) On September 24, 2014, a representative for the property owner at 6321 Villa Rosa, David Moss, submitted a timely appeal letter of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the proposed second story addition (see attachment). The appeal letter stated the grounds of the appeal, noting that the Applicant (Property Owner) is aggrieved by the Planning Commission's decision and the Planning Commission erred in its decision for the reasons set forth in the appeal letter. On November 6, 2014, Staff mailed notices for a City Council appeal hearing to 206 property owners within a 500 -foot radius from the subject property, and all interested parties, 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 November 6, 2014. The public comment period expired on December 9, 2014. Staff received a total of sixteen (16) comment letters as a result of the public notice. DISCUSSION 1. ADDeal of the P.C. Proiect Denial Proiect Description At this time, the applicant/appellant is proposing no changes to the proposed project that was presented to and denied by the Planning Commission on August 26, 2014. Said project proposes to add 471 square feet of new habitable area to the first floor of the existing residence and a new 1,532 square foot second -story to the existing 1,838 square foot single -story residence (404 square foot garage included), for a total structure size of 3,841 square feet. The residence will reach a maximum height of 22'-7". All sides of the second floor addition have undulating facades and multiple roof lines. The second -story will be setback 2'-11" from the first floor facade on east side, and 2'-0" from the first floor fagade on the west side of the residence. Portions of the second floor will be setback between 33'-8" and 35-11" from the rear property line, and between 32'-8" and 38'-1" from the front property line. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a 4'-0" tall retaining wall along the east property line with a total of 52.97 cubic yards of excavation to accommodate side yard access. Below is a table that summarizes critical components of the currently proposed project in comparison to the previous submittals described in the Background section. 1-33 Table 1: Project Comparison of Revisions presented to the Planning Commission 4,452 square feet 25'-5" 4:12 9'-0" Yes 2 19'-3" - 5'-0" along the East side - None along the West side - 4'-4" along the East side Required Height Variation Findings 3,886 square feet 23'-7" 2.5:12 8'-0" No None 33'-8" 5'-0" along the East side - 2'-0" along West side - 4'-4" along the East side 3,841 square feet 22'-7° 2.5:12 8'-0" No None 33'-8" - 6'-3" along the East side - 2'-0" along West side - 2'-11" along the East side (due to increased 1 It floor setback) All of the specific Height Variation findings that are required to be made by the City Council in order to overturn the Planning Commission's decision and approve the proposed project, are listed below, followed by Staff's assessment of the proposed project and the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project. 1. The applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process established by the city. 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 impaira 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. 3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. 1-34 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(6) of the Development Code, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a 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. 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 of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. 7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements. 8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. 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. Staff's Assessment of the Proposed Project Staff could not support approval of the original project design (May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report) due to view impairment as seen from 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. (Height Variation Finding #4), cumulative view impairment as seen from 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. (Height Variation Finding #6), the project was not designed in a manner to minimize view impairment (Height Variation Finding #5), bulk and mass issues (Height Variation Finding # 8), and privacy impacts to abutting, northerly neighbor located at 6320 Rio Linda as seen from two proposed balconies in the rear yard (Height Variation Finding #9). Based on project revisions made by the applicant after the July 8th Planning Commission meeting, Staff's previous concerns related to view impairment and building height (Height Variation Finding #'s 4, 5 and 6), neighborhood compatibility (Height Variation Finding # 8), and privacy impacts (Height Variation Finding # 9) were adequately addressed. As such, when the revised project was presented to the Planning Commission on August 26, 2014, Staff no longer had concerns with the proposed project. Notwithstanding Staff's position, the Planning Commission continued to have concerns with the re -designed project as it relates to neighborhood compatibility (Height Variation Finding #8), and thus for the reasons explained below, denied the proposed project. Planning Commission's Denial Decision Notwithstanding Staff's position that the proposed project adequately addressed Staff's original concerns with neighborhood compatibility, privacy, and individual and cumulative view impairment impacts, at the August 26, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission determined that the proposed Height Variation application could not be approved as a majority of the Planning Commission felt the proposed structure was not compatible with the immediate neighborhood (Height Variation Finding #8). 1-35 A majority of the Planning Commission acknowledged that the proposed second story addition would not create an anomaly in terms of two-story homes found within the immediate neighborhood, as there are three (3) other two-story homes found within the twenty (20) closest homes. However, the square footage of the revised project continued to create excessive bulk and mass issues when compared to the twenty (20) closest homes. This is due to the fact that the proposed project would be the second largest home in the neighborhood, and on the second smallest lot. Additionally, the Planning Commission felt that the overall scale of the residence would alter the character of the immediate neighborhood at a size of 3,841 square feet (garage included). Staff Responses to Issues Raised in the Appeal Letter The attached appeal letter submitted by the Appellant (property owner) raises various issues as to why the Planning Commission's decision should be overturned and the project approved as it relates specifically to the proposed two-story addition located at 6321 Villa Rosa. In summary, Staff believes that all of the appeal issues can be summarized into the three main points which are listed below (in bold text) followed by Staff's response (in regular text). A. The Planning Commission did not rely on Staff's evaluation or recommendation, and did not rely on properly documented photographs or renderings in making a decision. When considering the merits of a development application, the Planning Commission considers and weighs all evidence presented as part of the public record. This evidence includes project plans, a Staff Report with a Staff recommendation, written public comments, public testimony presented at a public hearing, and personal visual observations. In rendering a decision, each individual Planning Commissioner weighs the merits of all the evidence presented to them. While it is correct that at the July 8, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission relayed concerns with neighborhood compatibility despite Staff's position that its previous compatibility concerns had been addressed, the Planning Commission is not bound to follow Staff's position or recommendation. On the contrary, the Planning Commission is expected to make its own independent judgment on a matter before it, notwithstanding Staff's recommendation on the matter. At the July 8, 2014 and August 26, 2014 Planning Commission meetings, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised designs presented by the applicant, considered Staff's analyses and heard additional public testimony from the public. After hearing all the evidence presented at these meetings, the Planning Commission felt that the final, redesigned project did not create an unreasonable privacy impact to neighboring properties, and did not create any significant individual or cumulative view impacts. However, the Planning Commission felt that the final, redesigned project (although a step in the right direction) continued to create neighborhood compatibility concerns specifically related the overall square footage of the residence and the fact that the residence would be the second largest home on the second smallest lot. For this reason, the Planning Commission denied the Appellant's request, despite the various revisions. The specifics of the Planning Commission's findings are articulated in P.C. Resolution No. 2014-24, which is attached. B. The Planning Commission did not acknowledge mitigation of all neighborhood compatibility issues through architectural revisions. 1-36 The Appellant asserts that the revised two-story project that was presented at the August 26, 2014 Planning Commission meeting followed the design suggestions provided by the Planning Commission at the May 27, 2014 and July 8, 2014 meetings, and thus mitigated all potential impacts related to neighborhood compatibility. Below is Staff's response related to the specific issues raised by the Appellant with regards to neighborhood compatibility (Finding # 8). Neighborhood Compatibility Mitigation (Height Variation Finding # 8) In an effort to address neighborhood compatibility concerns raised by Staff and the Planning Commission, the applicant agreed to redesign the project based on feedback received from the Planning Commission at the May 27, 2014 and July 8, 2014 Planning Commission meetings. Specifically, the applicant reduced the overall square footage of the project and provided additional second -story setbacks to soften the appearance of the structure as seen from the street and neighboring properties. As detailed in the August 12, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report, the project size was reduced from 4,452 square feet to 3,841 square feet in area. In addition, the overall height of the residence was reduced from 25'-5" to 22'-7", resulting in a 2'-10" total reduction in the structure height that was originally presented to the Planning Commission. Furthermore, abundant second -story setbacks, undulating facades and aesthetically pleasing architectural materials were provided around the structure. By increasing the second -story setbacks and articulating the facades of the residence, which resulted in a smaller structure square footage, Staff felt that the proposed second -story addition no longer created bulk and mass impacts as seen from the neighboring properties, or as seen from the street. However, a majority of the Planning Commission felt that the revisions were still not enough to eliminate the project's apparent bulk and mass, and thus were not able to make Finding # 8, and denied the Appellant's request. C. The City failed to make vitally important minutes available to the Applicant (Appellant) or its representatives. The Appellant has noted that the City failed to make the minutes of the August 26, 2014 Planning Commission public hearing available for review by the next September 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, which the Appellant feels is contrary to common practice. The Appellant feels that the lack of minutes at the September 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, when the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-24, deprived the Appellant of due process. Furthermore, the Appellant feels that lack of minutes prior to the end of the 15 day appeal period limited the Appellant's ability to review the summaries of the testimony by Staff, interested 3rd parties, and Applicant (now Appellant). While Staff strives to get Planning Commission minutes completed and approved by the next Planning Commission meeting, this sometimes is not possible to achieve when there are extraordinarily long meetings. Given the breadth and scope of the items on the August 26, 2014 public hearing, a meeting which lasted over five (5) hours in duration, it was not possible to have the minutes of that meeting completed for approval on September 9, 2014. Since the Commission's September 23, 2014 meeting was cancelled, the August 26, 2014 minutes weren't approved by the Planning Commission until October 14, 2014. While the minutes from the August 26, 2014 Planning Commission meeting were not completed prior to the September 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, or the September 24, 2014 appeal deadline, the video of the public hearing was available on the City's website a few days after the August 26, 2014 1-37 Planning Commission meeting, and the Appellant was informed of this. Furthermore, the applicant and his representative were both present during the entirety of the Planning Commission's deliberation of the item. Staff does not agree that the Appellant was deprived of due process, as the public hearing was closed on August 26, 2014 by the Planning Commission and no additional testimony or evidence could be submitted to the Planning Commission on September 9, 2014. The purpose the September 9, 2014 meeting was strictly for the Planning Commission to adopt the Resolution memorializing its decision from August 26, 2014. Neighbors' Continued Concerns As noted throughout the record, a number of residents are concerned with three (3) main topics: 1) compatibility of a 2nd story addition in the immediate neighborhood, 2) privacy impacts to immediate neighbors, and 3) view impairment impacts from properties located along Alvarez. The City's Municipal Code Section 17.80.070(F) specifically states that "the City Council appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the materials presented to the planning commission. Any matter or evidence relating to the action on the application, regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed by the City Council at the appeal hearing." Given that the appeal brought forward by the Applicant (now Appellant) is de novo, the City Council is not limited to only considering the grounds set forth in the appeal letter. The City Council may also expand the consideration of the appeal hearing to include the concerns relayed by the neighbors, or any additional concerns raised by the City Council as a result of the public hearing. Therefore, if any members of the City Council wish to observe the proposed project from the properties identified and analyzed in the Planning Commission staff reports to view the view impairment and/or privacy impacts noted by neighbors, Staff is providing the specific addresses of properties affected. The properties that were considered for view impairments impacts are 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. A discussion Staff's findings can be found in the August 12' Planning Commission Staff Report. The property that was considered for privacy impacts is located at 6320 Rio Linda Dr. A discussion of Staff's findings can be found in the July 8th Planning Commission Staff Report. 2. Planning Commission's Recommendation to Waive the Appeal Fee As noted in the Appeal letter and Resolution No. 2014-24 (both attached), the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council waive the $2,275 appeal fee that the applicant/appellant was required to pay to appeal the Planning Commission's denial of his application. The Commission opined that due to the number of public hearings on the subject application and the Applicant's continued efforts to redesign the project to meet the concerns of Staff, the neighborhood and the Planning Commission, the appeal fee should be waived. Although the Appellant (property owner and Applicant) did not formally request a fee waiver of the City Council, they are requesting that the City Council consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to waive the appeal fee. According to Municipal Code Section 17.78.010, the City Council may only waive fees if it finds the following: The applicant or the beneficiary of the use or activity proposed by the applicant is a nonprofit corporation registered with the state of California; or, 2. The use or activity proposed or the activities of the beneficiary of the use or activity 1-38 proposed are charitable, educational or otherwise provide a substantial benefit to the public; or, 3. The applicant has demonstrated a financial hardship, as determined by the City Council, on a case by case basis. Notwithstanding the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Appellant's request for the City Council to honor the Planning Commission's recommendation, Staff is of the opinion that the appeal fee should not be waived as none of the code -required fee waiver findings are being met. The Appellant (Peachtree Family Trust) is not a nonprofit corporation registered with the State of California. The construction of the second story addition is not for a charitable or educational purpose, and would not provide a substantial benefit to the public. Lastly, the Appellant has not demonstrated a financial hardship to substantiate a waiver of the appeal fee. It should be noted that if the Appellant is successful in their appeal and the Planning Commission's decision is overturned, the Appellant will be refunded the full $2,275 appeal fee. If the final decision of the City Council is to approve the project with modifications to the design, then 1/2 the appeal fee ($1,137.50) will be refunded to the Appellant. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Comments As a result of the public notice for the City Council appeal hearing, Staff received a total of nine (9) additional comment letters from the public. The letters relay the same concerns with neighborhood compatibility, privacy impacts and view impairment expressed previouslyto Staff and the Planning Commission. These issues are addressed in the Staff Reports and Minutes of the Planning Commission. As noted throughout the record, the Planning Commission ultimately determined that the project did not create significant individual or cumulative view impacts, or privacy impacts to the neighboring properties. The Planning Commission's sole reason for project denial was due to continued neighborhood compatibility concerns. Planning Commission Chairman's Attendance at the City Council Appeal Hearing Given that the Planning Commission denied the project, based on customary practice, Staff has requested that Chairman Leon attend at the appeal hearing to answer any questions of the City Council as they relate to the Planning Commission's actions. CONCLUSION Although the Planning Commission denied the proposed second -story addition based on neighborhood compatibility concerns, Staff believes that all the necessary findings for approval of the proposed project can be made. As such, pursuant to City Council Policy No. 42, which requires Staff to present its independent and professional recommendation to the City Council, in addition to presenting the recommendation of the Planning Commission, Staff recommends that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, thereby conditionally approving the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the City Council to consider: 1-39 1) Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00064) without prejudice, and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next City Council meeting with an appropriate Resolution; or, 2) Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00064) with prejudice, and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next City Council meeting with an appropriate Resolution. This option would not allow the property owner to submit an application for a substantially similar two-story addition for one year; or, 3) Hear public testimony this evening, identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and remand the project back to the Planning Commission. FISCAL IMPACT The appellant has paid the applicable appeal fees, as established by Resolution of the City Council, therefore there are no fiscal impacts that would result from this request. As noted under Additional Information, if the Appellant is considered successful, and the Planning Commission's decision is overturned, the Appellant will receive a full refund of the appeal fee. If the appeal results in modifications to the project, other than changes specifically requested in the appeal, then % of the appeal fee shall be refunded to the successful Appellant. ATTAC H M E NTS • Letter of Appeal to the City Council (received September 24, 2014) • Correspondence Letters for December 16, 2014 City Council meeting • P.C. Resolution No. 2014-24 (Denial) • P.C. Minutes of September 9, 2014 meeting • P.C. Staff Report (September 9, 2014) o Late Correspondence from September 9, 2014 meeting • P.0 Minutes of August 26, 2014 meeting • P.C. Staff Report (August 26, 2014) o Late Correspondence from August 26, 2014 meeting o Public Correspondence since August 12, 2014 P.C. meeting o August 12, 2014 P.C. Staff Report o Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ (Approval) o Public Correspondence since July 8, 2014 P.C. meeting • P.C. Minutes of July 8, 2014 meeting • P.C. Staff Report (July 8, 2014) o Late Correspondence from July 8, 2014 meeting o Public Correspondence since May 27, 2014 P.C. meeting • P.C. Minutes of May 27, 2014 • P.C. Staff Report (May 27, 2014) o Late Correspondence from May 27, 2014 meeting 1-40 Project Plans 1-41 December 16, 2014 C.C. Staff Report (Late Correspondence) 1-42 Examples of Two Story Homes in Rancho Palos Verdes Several of these two story house images were presented by Staff to the Commission on 5/27/14 RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF HE RECORD ATTHE COUNCIL MEETING OF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERR CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK 1-43 152 144 The "Community" Qgfined by Letters of Opposition and Support CITY OF RANCHO PALO$ VERDES i- Zs t a 5 q i J Y9 6 MONERO a 6,01 0'0—d+ r d x ec 1p ® J/ ,� f2. CT� a, \C,: � :JW RIDGEGLADE + int 100'& 500' RADIUS MAP - Comments come from 40 households located along five streets. Monero, Rio Linda, Villa Rosa, Alvarez, Centuria - The "Community" is defined by the 92 homes that are located along these five streets. Less than half the households within the "Community" oppose the second floor addition. 1-44 Relative Lot Grades — Villa Rosa Address Relative Grade Roof Height Height. Relative to Proposed Height. 6321 Villa Rosa 0.0 22.5 22.5 (Hassan) 6315 Villa Rosa +3.5 19.5 -3.0 (Sheh) j 6309 Villa Rosa +8.0 24.5 +4.5 (Hamilton) 6303 Villa Rosa +12 28.0 +9 (Camacho) SOUTH WEST EAST NORTH 1-45 tv �T;aMJti.• � i� j � � �� r. IVA ``,cif'• Vit' _r ''�' •,.P,. ;tw ` owl. �• E may+ .• Kira• � o Xf!") lorrwo w4 c_ 06 °o o' b c .= c ``` N M W o Q1 0 •C C E o r- N N c cn .o _E .� `�o 0o oy rn(a e� � *- _cn70 E 0 vi o s N o X (D N a) ,c a ca O o�C oN �U ~ C� . 0., OL o C L N .0 � N N C` m N- N .0 o .0 o 0 O v; �+ o a)U oo�°6•n o omc = 4 N a- _ ,� o n o cu `°'_ c0 � _c o M oo(D N p Vi R) U O C C 00 M CN 0 CO Q o - w4 uj 0 LL 0 uj V U1`) , u.1 Q O N J V— CN LU 04 00 uj L) z LU w �w Lu W WCL cn c- 0 O 0 m O cv a� 0 a� W cu Cf) CD U c T CD O 0 - Cl) v 0- E 0 m c U) O C L L m cn O � C V CO O -Q -C 06 U � (n 0 E O L O c o L W c o C as U) -0° � : C: O m cu — u > mm -a *_, c ca - U) U '§ w (D �! o > QI' c) cn O 0)-2 O cz Zt _1 J uj L) z LU w �w Lu W WCL cn c- 0 O 0 m O cv a� 0 a� W cu Cf) CD U c T CD O 0 - Cl) v 0- E 0 m c U) O C L O z Q O O O O m C� LU z w LL O w z z w a_ O w 2 U) J MW �i r U F- w H H LU w tf) O Q z Q z O w a a U H w w w F - (f) w 2 1 n� V Q Q z W a Q) w CC 0 CL a - Q a LL Q C/) z 0-1LLI z 0 Q LL LU U z O U O w w C CD N C4,) 0 (U Q N 06 r tt CY) C75 N C;C co Q (V 00 C E a) uot=iT O CO 5 O 0-0 m _0 C O O 0-0 -O M O a cll� C cn (u i� 0 J Q? o 4- U) CD � U _m (� U�CD �� U) O o U —I U) m v C r t�D � - > w CN © CL +r ao t;6 C r 06 v ` 4 C C La N to C LL C3) CA m i C *a L- o D C\-. C) E c O " :3 O cr) U) O M m CIA cn O Q C O 0 O O _C: r — (D U _ 00 C"7 @ -006 m :3 O -D CQ t� 0 J 70 06 70 m O O _1 N LO J O 2E O rn F m o c� O N c� q} Q d "– O p O V) CIO O k CN O O Q� m CQ 06 Q CO > U N � N C�5 (D CD N C4,) 0 (U Q N 06 r tt CY) C75 N C;C co Q (V 00 C E a) uot=iT O CO 5 C�5 (D CD N C4,) 0 (U Q N L (D N -+- U) (h Q) C � O CO O 0-0 m _0 C O O 0-0 -O M O a cll� C cn (u i� 0 J Q? o -Q U) CD � U _m (� U�CD �� �N�t O U U —I U) to � r t�D � � 4 N C C � O O 0-0 m _0 C O 0-0 -O O O O M U Q? -Q E CD -0 (D C O M O U —I U) to r t�D � � 4 w CN © CL +r ao t;6 C r 06 v ` 4 C C La N to C LL C3) CA Rf 0 i C *a L- U) LLI X11 U) U CL U) Z > L LI ' c .� N C U N U p C/) C O W >; U W U CU — Z Q. > 0 U U C\1 rl- a W a) c C C. U) O V) 0 06 N co T + 0 3 (n (n c 4- C 70 O c (6 U L (p N W C + 0 U Q ��N o Q } c 0 - o Q. (f)�. Cv a RS �_ _> 4� O Lo co a? C Q a N c L - O (1) 00 0 (-0 z' L M U 1 �. . O Z L J Zt .0 cnw oa it CL F- M U M (1) I 1 CO c op � 06 CL LO 00 o� U �woZ O uj �ZQ0 O �0ZFn LL 0w J O > Q w UWz 5C w Z w J ZC) a Q O S O o w _ w z0� 0omQ O w U) L1J[QL Z N -z2 L- w w O O O 0� CL'WV� 0 D a. O w OOz0 D LL LL w OLL OW O u�0o-�- x zz�w CL W z U) 2 a o ww vnaJ> - �z=0 cn WQ� s Z LL _ LL F- _ k !t OR M j/} 0 :. IA AmL . AmL_ TO ltl (Yj � A *1 1 C) � .•�*.. �d'3 a 1 ti 1�l VINWN30 1 tJ WA. 1 i c3R% NU\olA J CD C F r Or Z u / W �7 L �\ J V IA f. t y PER IT Will v% ,^ w m e b f 100k w, Will v% ,^ m 10 CJ 1 Q uj IT A V f r.� w t i 1 r r r r A 0 i fl; From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2014 11:14 AM To; cc Subject: Support Level Map for 6321 Villa Rasa Neighborhood Attachments: Support Statistics.pptx Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Staff is providing you with an illustration of the support levels of the neighborhood surrounding the project under appeal at tonight's City Council Meeting (6321 Villa Rosa), in the attached illustration, Staff has provided the following: 1) The subject property under appeal highlighted in alight blue color Z) Neighbors who support the project —illustrated with a green circle 3� Neighbors who are against the project —illustrated with a red circle 4) Households where there are split opinions (for and against) — illustrated with a blue circle This slide will also be available for reference in the Late Correspondence presented to the City Council as well as in Staff`s Powerpoint presentation this evening. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (310) 544 -5228 - Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner L('icy 4f i'k;rru:✓ o (11aCos' vercfes Planning Deparirnent 30940 Hawthorne blvd. (Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.paiosyerdes.conilrpv/p.!anp)inpfi)lRnning-Zoning/index.cf m (310) 544-5228— (310) 544-5293 f lezam Qrpy. corn 1-65 4V - all Ali AX- I ''I From: Jeffrey Lewis <jcff@broediowleti,vis.com} Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:35 AM To: cc subject: Villa Rosa Project at Tonight's CC Meeting Attachments: Lewis Powerpoint Villa Rosa,pdf; ATTOOOO1.him mayor Knight, T011ight YOU NVill hear the appeal by the Peachtree Trust of your Planning C'ommission's 6-1 denial of the proposQd two Story home ut 6321 �'illa Rosas, I represent the Hamilton, (:oirrado, 5hch and other• families in the neighborhood who are concerned about this pr( "ext, I intend on displaying the attached power point presentation this evening, on t}ehalf of these neighbors in oppusitlon to the project. I kali ve 1 call prc5cnl lhiti in under three minutes but I �,Yanted to respectfully rcqucst fin additional two minutes to speak in case 1 cannot ccnnplOW Illy, presciitalikon. I aalmo request that the atwehed presentation be included in the administrative record (its lute correspondence) for thvi inaltor_ respectfully submitted, 1-67 1. 6321 Villa Rosa Case No. ZON2014-00064 By Jeffrey Lewis, Esq. on Behalf of Hamilton, Corrado, Sheh and Other Families Opposed to the Peachtree Project By the Numbers Looking at the twenty closest homes: This project would be bigger than 19 of the 20 closest homes (3,841 sq. ft.) This project is located on the smallest lot out of 20 (7,015 sq. feet) Over 70 neighbors have written in to oppose the project proposed by the Peachtree Family Trust. Have attended four Planning Commission meetings, including sitting through hearings on the Green Hills project. When all seven commissioners were present, project was voted down 6-1 (August 26, 2014 PC Meeting, vice-chairman Nelson Dissenting). 1-69 Address Lot Structure Stories 6315 Villa Rosa 7,170 2,416 1 6309 Villa Rosa 7,392 2,420 1 6303 Villa Rosa 9,277 2,424 1 6302 Villa Rosa 11,696 1,942 1 6308 Villa Rosa 9,890 23052 1 6314 Villa Rosa 9,421 2,331 2 6320 Villa Rosa 9,093 1,942 1 6326 Villa Rosa 10,959 13942; 1 -6332 Villa Rosa 13,764 2,787 2' 6338 Villa Rosa 7,048 2,062 1 6344 Villa Rosa 7,168 3,391 1 6350 Villa Rosa 8,926 2,599 1 6329 Villa Rosa 9,181 2,320 1 6343 Villa Rosa 7,721 41612 2 6358 Villa Rosa 8,256 2)193 1 6334 Rio Linda 7,311 1,942 1 6343 Rio Linda 8,091 2,326 1 6403 Rio Linda 7,307 2,193 1 6337 Rio Linda 7,379 2,193 1 ,6409 Rio Linda 1 7,3691 2,3261 11 Average 9,724 2,421 Smallest 7,048 1,942 Largest 13,764 4,632 6321 Villa Rosa Original 4,452 6321 Villa Rosa July 7,015 3,986 6321 Villa Rosa August 3,841 August Proposal 1. Exceeds the average bv 1,420 feet 2. Exceeds 19 of 20 homes 3. Exceeds 2 of 3 two story homes 1-70 Average Smallest 8,724 7,048 Largest 13,764 '6321 Villa Rosa Original .6321 Villa Rosa July -6321 Villa Rosa August 7,015 August Proposal 1. Exceeds the average by 1,420 feet 2. Exceeds 19 of 20 homes 3. Exceeds 2 of 3 two story homes 2,421 1,942. 4,612 4,45 2 3A886 8,841 1-71 Moss Letter of Appeal Argument No. 1: The Planning Commission [did Not "s=ully Grasp" Staff Report because the Peachtree Trust Reduced its Project Just because the Peachtree Trust made a series of reductions does not mean that the PC did not "fully grasp" the project. After four hearings, it is likely the PC did "fully grasp" the project. The applicant reduced its original unreasonably big project (4,452 square feet) to a slightly smaller but still unreasonably big project (3,841 square feet). Nothing in the code requires the PC to approve based on a decrease in project. The decreases demonstrate nothing more than that the original project was unreasonable. 1-72 Moss Letter of Appeal (Cont'd) Argument No. 2: The Planning Commission Did Not "Fully Grasp" the Staff Report because the Staff Recommended Approval of the Project in August. The PC uses its independent judgment. PC not required to rubber stamp staff recommendation. Just because PC did not agree with staff recommendation does not mean that PC did not "fully grasp" report. 1-73 Moss Letter of Appeal (Cont'd) Argument No. 3; The Minute Order Issue. Videotape of PC meetings available streaming online shortly after each meeting. Peachtree Trust was in attendance at each meeting. No prejudice in delay from actual meeting minutes. What precisely was revealed by written minutes that the Peachtree Trust could not learn by attendance at the hearing or streaming videotape? No due process violation here. 1-74 Moss Letter of Appeal "Cont'd' (L J Argument No. 4: The "But we made every Change that the PC asked fora Argument The Peachtree Trust argues that it made every change the PC asked for and, therefore, the PC was required to approve the project, A The Commission failed to approve the _roject despite the fact that the final revised. plans included and reflected all the revisions the Commission previousIy wanted regarding height_ mass, balconies, setbacks and ariicula ion_ a) The Commission directed the Appellant to make extensive revisions and despite making those revisions, failed to approve the project. Actually the PC in char, unequivocal terms told the Peachtree Trust to try a single story or split level design 1-75 Commissioner Gerstner "felt the neighborhood was consistently single -story post and beam construction which was common in the 1960s. He noted this is one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood seeking to construct one of the biggest homes in the neighborhood. He stated that he calculated out that a single story home on this lot could be as large as 2,500 square feet, which is larger than all but a few homes in this neighborhood. He felt that the house as currently designed does not belong in this neighborhood. He felt that a single story home would be much more appropriate, if at all possible, or possibly a split-level home with a bit of additional excavation. He noted that this is a difficult neighborhood to respect privacy, however the neighbors' privacy should be respected as much as possible. (May 27, 2014, PC Minutes, p. 8). 1-76 Commissioner James H... felt a single -story or a split-level would be a more appropriate design for this neighborhood. While he understood the applicant's comments that this will be his dream home, he noted that many neighbors also stated that their home was their dream home when they moved in many years ago, and these neighbors have lived in their homes a long time in what was intended to be a neighborhood of single-family homes. He was also concerned with what will happen if this home is approved, and in a few months another one down the street requests an addition that is similar. He felt this was a problem, and one that the neighbors were correct to be concerned with. He therefore was not likely to approve the current design. (May 27, 2014, PC Minutes, p. 9). 1-77 Commissioner Cruikshank "...the idea of a split-level home was an interesting and appealing idea. He was concerned about the hulk and mans of a second story that encroaches beyond the envelope of the current home and into the backyards of the neighbors. He felt a second story, if designed correctly and addressed most of the neighbors' concerns, may be acceptable, however he would prefer to see a split-level design. (May 27, 2014, PC Minutes, p. 9). 1-78 Moss Letter of Appeal (Contd) In sum, in May 2914, the commissioners told the Peachtree Trust to try a single or split-level design but the Peachtree Trust did not want to listen. It should not have been any surprise to the Peachtree Trust that in August, the same seven commissioners voted 6-1 against this project. 1-79 Chairman Leon's Comments ",..felt that it will not be the same neighborhood if it is developed to that degree of intensity. He referred to Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach where they have done exactly that, and it didn't take very long. He appreciated what the applicant has done with the design, as the design is significantly better than it was when it was first submitted. However, he still did not believe this design to be compatible with this particular neighborhood, and this design alters the sense of this neighborhood. (August 26, 2014 Meeting Minutes) Moss Letter of Appeal (Cont'd) Argument No. a: The "'Right to a Second Story" issue "The Applicant is being deprived the right to construct a second floor addition that complies with the spirit and intent of the Municipal Code." There is no such thing as a "right to a second story" in RPV. The Municipal Code does not include such a right. However, neighborhoods do have rights to retain their character. 1-81 Neighborhood Compatibility Before its incorporation, marry of the City's neighborhoods were developed with single- family residences under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. These houses, because of their size, floor pian and aging condition, have become the subject of significant modification in recent }rears. With increasing property values and more money being spent on homes today, much of the existing housing stock is not well- suited to meet the needs and accommodate the changing lifestyle of existing residents and those who are relocating to the City. However, when a change is made in an existing neighborhood, it is essential to properly balance residential development with the preservation of the rural and semi -rural character of the City. Modernization of the aging housing stock must be done in a manner that recognizes and respects the unique features and characteristics of neighborhoods, thereby ensuring continued enjoyment of the City's quality of life. This is the concept of Neighborhood Compatibility. (RPV Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, p. 1). 1-82 Buzz Words Threatening Lawsuit Letter of Appeal by David Moss includes phrases like: "lack of substantial evidence," "abuse of discretion" deprivation of "Due Process" Iirecord of capricious and arbitrary consideration" by the planning commission These are buzz words that are code for: "Give us our home or we will file a lawsuit against the City." Don't give in to legal bullies. The determination by the Planning Commission is based on the competent judgment of the seven individuals appointed by you. 1-83 1111 t IM N r••1 rr rN••rrrr'• 11 r rY WW/YIIHYN/4/ iWi If11r11N { ��'••• rlr••• •rF •N•,•••rrr•1 •t t1/Y/ MIIw/W f1Y N1H4 N/N ••Y► rIX•/�\I eT i iei4 1H/■• t1YY r1 \' +•YN• •'1 1 N1114 W/W 111fY YWI \ �. t\■ d1 { • 1Nr•1 i1;i•N 1 1 1 • N Nr IWI 1 11H H•r { r ; ■ Nil Y1{N /M i1 es Ji•�.rrf1• •.....•..• d • • • NNM 1 Nr 1• / {•r •+ri N HNHMtWNf/Y■1/1; 1 f • r iHt1 IW rNY■W fFf•h litiiN/NNW■1 Yw�Y�1� �5 1,♦r4rN NrWF14 •ggNrNF\XY NHr♦r41F4lrr4 rWr 1 Y rlNr•N1NF1111y1IY rN rf •1•/r{II/MrrNH!•n111/tlw�Ir•• • Me �•r/\Irr 'S ,Wr• :•1 t ••I ,N,rrrNilYlrr,Nle •trINlN11 Ir• r1 •••••{111\♦•r•NhN•r1f4Nw��� I••1 •%r•rrNNH•1••N,••f N•III/YItINY■YYI it 1 /11r 1 +i n,\N•rY N1 M 1 •1 !•!„lr,rrrr••••h •• I,NIH�NY�YN ••r1.1 •fe••-r•!\rrretrilNINNNN�i■ 1••r• j, rN •1 ■r •i •••1••••••••••ir••+•r14NN11w1 w •r\•r••••I r+•••■Nr♦egiNNN/NW II ■1 r•NHIINNIN :Ir• "•f•r,F..•a•II/NNr t � ► • r 1 r ••q• •:••rlh•1•N►NXINNI •• / + ' i rr1• •r/,•••rrrr•rr •i••r444tN11N/►IY • •+N•r• •rr1r11NNYY1 ♦ '� r 1 -��in^m•er-.•1/1/uNNWHNIY/NI •r1.1.1r••rn •- r:MIN11N1YN/NI +� •+•1 �� ••r��♦•rr•rn N1;NIY fW/YN •rrt♦4 •r 111 •r' � � N rNYN1i\•gfNNN•N • .......... rhlM ! r /14Nli1w1 •rrl r/NrrllF/r1i•Ni1N• • • , ••NiihNtrtNri•rF/11ff / ••1111 nNH•11 rIN111N111 1 i •1 rr NrIlNn1•rN1111F1 r •••1 N1twq Nii4wIl •�rrNIf411♦hr •••♦ 1• F r•r4/etrrt hN111\r ♦•rN4•{111rrY1•„ NI r+ ii, r•lrgndf•flNn rr•iN •Ni1FlN/YYNNN ••fr•••{r•r11N 1• r ................•411,14•ii4{1N e•.:;:iii::is ..•r:1hr•NrwYlhhf r•1••irr• �{ ••rYwMId/NNrr ,•+/1 • • • N••f1•rrr+fXN1 IIIN h1 Nr 1/ 1 Jl re•NN ♦••1 •q fYflrWul/\IwXN4N4NNWIM,♦•N4NNiiW1 r•Ir•rr•/+••Ir•1 •IM r•••,ri N•IhY•r+••r•iNN+N1I NI t/,rr•r•• rrr••• r1••••rr/•••••Nr•1.1••••r•lNrr•rgY•M 1•\•rr••rtN rNi\Nr •�•n/1H1111Hfr•1♦•r•rr••IINIIN••NfINNr Ir ••v•••+rrr•• • f•1•••rn11r••NrN r1••N •t ♦. b ••♦rrq . ••/1•h ♦d nN••n••• r• r1N41•♦•1/1 r �I •+1+•rnNritrN / r r r1• • • • lrrf •t rl r•Nrrfrrrl4Nff r r • •• qH r•rN/rfNY li N r rl rr\rN1•NN/InXY■i • r •Nt N N � N 11 1 1 ••••••r • •••••• •••••••hri•hhr•r{//1w1 •• ••Ir•1•• r, •1••rIN4•N•4N •\•!•••••n •••dl n1.•irrMN1IYYi • r rei•• •i�rr 1 ■, 1•�r r,r('+n HI\N,N,rNY1Y r nr e�! rrri• •r!Y• +g1rIN•IrFIN11 ' •I• i •+lirri • •Ir •r••r•••r••••• ••r•+•• ,••••//••rINNHYI •/• ••N !►r. N11411NN/ IN •/• •N4 •q• M\I.1 •rf1r///11•NI Y id �ri••f ,Nq♦•N,NIII N••N11 • •r1 ■ 1/ � ••t1/ �Y�r YYr r•♦n••,n rn1•r,frM11 •••l+i r, •,Nr•1.1 •r:Nirrir•Ir!►NNI • .IhgN w1,�INIfIN1••r•r••r`1i\ N ••1••••••rr•e"MISLAY rrM--,/• r1111t •• ,•64 'I ••11M 1' 111 , •• I•r• •••r••• •••rfNrNIN e r r•1•r •r•Nr •rtNNlft1 qw 1 •IY I •F•N ► ♦ r\• •• iq•r••1 •Ir1/11rfr11NN1 •r• rr•••• r• •••r4rr1•rr NIANINI/ 1� •M Y■ • •••..N..•••r•••,..:.Ir•r•N••04,4• 4rNi1N • r r• er••••♦•Irhr•fi/WI r /•�r1./ •�1r•i•r•••r••h11NigINrrlHy11// •i♦r•I• • ■r/ r11••Y •Ni •r,1•r11N1f4F1\-NN{g1NW •M• N■Yr r, N•rr'Nrr •1 •r•Nr•,lHINi/4 •rig4H ,• •r •r••+1 •r•r•1 •!•1•MN4r.4 •rl4rlti 1 r•fi r•rrr ••rt••rr IrN1hX•rW1 riN I h ♦ fl riNNN11Hf4 •••1.1 •!-r-4-•,••.NN1 n,N11FIWN/+1NINfY •♦•r\•N•,,,ry N„•r•, •• Nlrb♦ fN1/W1 rW• •fI ••rr•r•• •fry•/rrr•/IirF\4/1•NINIY �r1r•hN••i ••rr••••N/rrtN144H+11, •i/1 �r N\e 1rNrrtlrri• •Ir/•N41t4 •ivHilNllgdw r,l,r•r••iir •-h„rrrr•Hfq\Ir11\NIII ••1r •• 41: r• 1 / r tit••/•frirN N•NM NIININrrIN1 e•1ih Nr,grrNi•riNNlN411f111.4N1 � .�1 i�1 :i i r •4 1 1 i1rH11N1141F1iNN11/NYI/NNINI/ ii111,d4+•44n/rrrrl/1M■111Y11111r / ■• NIINMN NNhiehIY411/IN INM r prF/111X rY11N1/Nf111 N ! NFrIN/111114N M, at11f1 tN t11rM HNh11i4/ IN IW /•14wt�N�ll Y INI N1yyrwi1l1ll '6141N • r r 1 \1 i •f tt•• 1 t I••l rrr•r1■/II• •i1I,+\N111 Mi f I '•,ir ♦ Y MY w ,r • !- 1 N ,1■r ! 11 1• eNffY 11Y/Y NlliN rININ \+INN x111 i r I Frorn Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Jeff, Susan Brooks Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:07 PM Hi Jeff — Thanks for your email. The City Clerk was copied on your email belovo, so a hard copy of your PowerPoint will be included as part of tonight's late correspondence. also, I've forwarded your email to the project planner, Lena Mikhail, so that she can have it available on the laptop at tonight's meetirfg. Please let us know if staff can be of any further assistance_ Carolynn Jeffrey Lewis; PC; CC Carol Lynch cclynch@rwglaw_corr> Legal Representation Thank you for stepping forward to announce to Council that you are officially representing a specific set of individuals and others opposed to this project. I see in attachment 1-19 of the staff report that the 8126/14 Minutes reflect you did state your law firm was representing several homeowners, As an attorney and former Planning Commissioner for RPV, you have every right to advocate. 5ince you reside outside the 500' radius, actually about 3,800' away from the project and in a different neighborhood, you are not personally affected by this particular project. However, the public should be made aware that you are or may even be, a paid advocate. I am concerned that some of these comments from other Commissioners may have been taken out of context, given the dates of the quoted statements and subsequent changes made to the project. I am therefore, forwarding them to the PC for their perusal, Perhaps they might want to opine. We afl want what's best for our city, and that should be our number one priority. Regards, Susan (Cou ncilmern ber, please do not click 'reply' or 'reply all.') Susan Brooks Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Pules Verdes (aro) 5rr-2971 1-85 From- Allsa Statman <alisastatman@gmail,com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16,2014 4:27 PM To, Leza Mikhail: CC Cc: kevin0c2servicL-5,COM Subject: Rvd: Missing Letters to City Council - 6311 Villa Rosa Height Variation Appeal Lear City Counsel & M-,, Mikhail, I have been advised by Kevin I larnilton that my original letter of"oppositiou 6321 Villa Rosa Height Variation Case � as not ieQcived by your offices. Below is the original letter. This lr:tter is to inform the city counsel that I ani in opposition of the 6321 height variation. Our neighborhood has withstood over 45 years of these monstrous types of renovations while maintaining the charni style and single -story ranch characteristics that was intended ]or this neighborhood, To allOW such a massive home: to be built on 6321 Villa Rosa will itnpede on the neighborhood view to be shared by all as well as impeding on the neighboring home's privacy th+:rcby degrading the. `!alm of all the homes around it, On another note, I fear that if you allow this to happen at 0321 Villa} Rasa it will have a domino effect of CVC1'ti'crne trying; tO build up and above cuch new dwelling in artier to have the view until our once charming n►:1ghb01-hU0d is deniolished by massive McMansions that have no business on tour stttinp-size properties. Thank v()u for your consideration, 1'llisa Staunalt 0240 klonero Drive Rancho Palso Verdes, CA 90275 ---------- l orwarded rnessage---------- From: lZay Nuher {rty,nuheTC1c .coX,net{ llatte: Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:35 PM Sul ie(;t: RE: Missing Letters to City Council - 6321 Villa Rosa Height Variation Appeal To, Kevin <kevin6i&2scryices. corn>, William Sheh <wshehtr%jtectowe1d.com>, Vincent Liti 'inccl�8EtiS:`ti t~ntatil.c[nr1�, I:tlelii Yeh <-edyehoot t. 4yaihclo.ro n>, dcllandste4'e <dellanliteti°i. i;'cgxmct>, Donald I3rcy�;clo�1 tloi aldbrc+ c ;tx.. rthoL),com>, Akcmichi Yamada q.v_hLte-jjm,ct}m. sainuel glcnn <saa�nt�cl,{ 1 n42 u veriv,ou, let>, JU1,1I' C)WENS-RICC'tt�t�v�ilic�'ir;lnsn.coi31>, Lva Muchnick c 'a,rnucElniukir% ilyai] _com=, carl.�lntelinick(u? intlil,tnm, Evelyn Kohler < ap5act craac>I,ct�nt:�. Jeanne Church jcaasschl7i�kiorcr h2v_ciitov'et>,1111-Utlecl 9el'nolcql,wnasakozyf,mr ilc-e�rn ,o_n Cf1Z0n.net16315;c7yahoo.lulp, mcj5pud`iivtc, rizon_nM rttcle5,cr:.ct�x.nct, setty00fii,verlr.()ri.nit,i�tlljctts�t�t.nlail,ccl�ti, micliacllinclermtln tt�yalh«c�.ct»n, tl omasa- gh�l'an,'�r)hotniaiL4om, Mar4'l3eth n1ar}'hc�ltr"ci!e2scryice5,�cr�Yt�, clatidine.little;tt:!graiinmy,co rn Alisa Statlrntlta �`til't5astai[rntin�'tt^r;�nail.cc�in�1 1-86 /' My letter was included. From: Kevin [mailtcrke+yin@C2Services.comJ Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 8.18 PM To -.'William Sheh';'Vincent Liu'; 'Eddie Yeh';'+dellandsteve';'Donald Brogdon;'Akemichi Yamada'; a.y.h@mQ_com; 'samuel glenn'; 'J U LIE OWENS-RICE'; 'Eva Muchnick'; carl.muchnick@pmail_com;'Ray Nuber'; 'Evelyn Kohler'; 'Jeanne Church'; mrutledgelCoo)aol.com; bpmarino@,verizon.net; masarkozy@hotmail.cvm:yoshikorpvca@vertzan.net; cc�olpead16315Qyahoo.lo.ip; dehoenisch2@gmail,com; ci5pud@verizon.net; raeles@cox.net; settv60@veri7on.net; ianieets@Itmail_com; iiiichaeltinderman@yahoo.com; thomas-ohagan@hotmaii_com;'MaryBeth'; claudine.little @grammy,corn,'Alisa $tatman' Subject: Missing tetters #o City Council - 6321 Villa Rosa Height Variation App4�al Importance; High To all, After looking at the correspondence associated with the Staff Repoa, it was discovered that the letters from a number of people were not included. Pleu,se clieck Me immes below to makemire Mal your lener and fire letter of anywieyou know that .serif one k included. All con-cspondrnce letters to Cit; Council in order; Sherry Frick5(}n (Dec. L ?U 14) Kevin I-laniilton & Miry 13 th Corrado Shcriry° FrIckson (Sep. 11, 2014) Jeanne Church N -like & Mary Ruttedge Beatrice & Joe Marino Jim & rvelyn Kohl,;r Akemichi Yarnada Marian & Zoltan t?i2il{ozy Yoshiko Ohno Betty &. Donald Bro�zdon Kevin Hamilton (Petition submittal) Sans & Carol Glenn 1-87 Raymond Huber .Andrew Hsu &- Ciaylcy Louie Anyone who sent an email lettcr before Tuosday December 9th at 5:30 pin and k mi ,sing from the above Correspondence letters :should intrrtediately wad an einail to Lew Mikhail lezanigrpy.gom>m anti thtr Glj. Council complaining ttboul deer exclusim? of their letter and include Me original faller. .A link to the Dvcomber 16, 2014 City Council Agenda is provitictl below, Agenda Twin 91 contains links to the Staff Report and the Correspondence Lcttt:rs (separate hetn�). httla:rte•���.v-p��lcas�erdc;,.ctamfr��v}cit}'c�>uncilia��enda�+?(1(4_!l�cutia�:.?Vleetin �T�.�att_?O1�-lZ-I6 NOTE; We are first up as Item 91 on 'Tuesday and should be an by 3:30. Speakers meed to fill out a speaker farm by 7.40. Please plan to attend and get your neighbors to attend even if you f they don't speak. We will ask everyone opposed to stand up and that will send a message to the +Coija it as it did the Commission. This is a one-shot folks. Wt,, WIN OR LOSE TUESDAY N1G1['l! If yLiu have any questions, please contact me, Kevin I lamilton 6309 Villa Physa RPV. Cts 90275 ( 314) 560-0383 iffoo-Fee From: Joan and Sam Kraus cjnskraus@cox.net3 Sent. Thursday, December 11, 2014 7,27 PM To: cc Subject: Villa Rosa house decision We live about 2 blacks frorn the Villa Rosa house that wants to put on a second story. We oppose the remodel and hope you will support your planning commission's decision to deny it. White we are not directly affected, we want our community to continue to have the atmosphere originally planned for it. That's why we bought where we dict. Creeping mansonixation can destroy the atmosphere of our comm unity. Yours truly, Joan and Samuel Kraus 6148 Monero Drive, RPU From: jnbertolina@cox.net Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 7:06 PM To: Cc Subject: 6321 Villa Rasa Uphold the denial of height variation for this property. James & Nelly Bertolina 3713 Hightide Dr. RPV SCA 90275 310 265 0446 1-90 I From: Leza Mikhail Sant: Monday, December 15, 2014 9;19 AM To: Donald Brogdon Cc: cc Subject- RE: Comments on RPV Planni nth Division Case No. ZON7014-00064 Hello Mr. Brogdon, In the attachnnent link below, on pages 1.46 through 1-51 is a comment letter from you and Betty Brogdor). Was there another letter that you submitted that was different from the information under the attachments link? bttp://www.pa losverdes.com/rpv/Citycouncil/agendas/2Dl4_4endas/Meetin&Date-2014-13-16IVilla-Rosa-attachment- 3.pdf Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department .30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. palosve rdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zonin/index.cfrn (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com -----Original Message ----- From; Donald Brogdon[mailto;donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com) Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 8:53 PM To: Leza Mikhail Cc: CSC Subject; RE: Comments on RPV Planning pivision Case No. ZON2014-00064 Dear Ms. Mikhail; Enclosed please find your correspondence to me, Donald Brogdon, regarding your receipt of my comments to the RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064: "On Mori, 12/8/14, Leza Mikhail <LezaM a@rpv.tom> wrote:" Subject: RE: Comments on RVV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 To: "Donald Brogdon" <dunaldbrogdon@yahoo,com> [gate: Monday, December S, 2014, 2:56 PM "Thank you for your comments. I will be sure to include them with the Staff Report to the City Council." Leza Mikhail Associate Planner Looking ahead to the upcoming meeting with the City Council regarding Planning ()!vision Case No. ZON2014-00064, I do not find my com merits letter as part of the Staff Report. In addition to ern ailing my comments to the City Council, that you have acknowledged receiving, 1 stopped by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes office 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 on Docember S, 2014 arourid 2:50 PM and handed color copies of my comments and also for Betty Brogdon to Mercenia Lugo, Planning Technician. fills. Lugo date stamped my comments as well as Betty's as being received, made photo copies of our comments for our records and thanked me for stopping by the office. I certainly hope this was just some clerical oversight and look forward to receiving a response from you before the hearing next week that bath my comments and Betty's comments will be included as part of the Staff Report. Sincerely, Donald Brogdon 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275 -------------------------------------------- Cin Mon, 12/8/14, Leza Mikhail <LezaM@u rpv.com> wrote: Subject; RE: Comments or) RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00066 To: "Donald Brogdon" <donaldbrogdon@yahoo.r.om> Date. Monday, december 8, 2014, 2;56 PM Thank you for your comments. I will be sure to include there with the Staff Report to the City Council. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/plannin&/planning-zoniiig/index.cfm (314) 544-5228 — (314) 544-5293 f Iezarn[7a rpv,com -----Original Message ----- 1-92 From_ Donald Brogdon[mailto.donaldbrogdon@yahoo.comj Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 2;46 PM To: CC Cc- Leza Mikhail Subject; Comments on RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-OD064 To: City Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Cc.., Ms, Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Pales Verdes, CA From. Donald Brogdon, 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-377-5783, donaidbrogdon@yahoo.com Date- December 8, 2014 Subject. Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, R.P.V, CA. Reference_ RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014..00064 Dear Honorable !Members of City Council, My wife and I moved to Rancho Palos Verdes over 12 years ago. After looking at many homes in this area we decided to make our permanent residence at 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. We chose this property primarily because of the backyard. It is beautifully landscaped and has a very secluded tranquil feeling that we really cherish when we go back to sit, relax, and enjoy our beautiful, private surroundings; especially, Qu r Japanese Cherry Trees and Avocado Tree. In the spring the Cherry trees show a beautiful blossom that we really enjoy. We drive long distances daily and after the long commute we enjoy the private quiet calrn and peaceful surroundings of our home. In our back yard directly to the west there is a huge two story house that impedes our privacy and blocks some of our view of the Pacific Ocean, The majority of the time we hear his alarm clock, radio, music, television, and loud conversations that wake us up at night or early in the morning because it blares directly into our bedroom. We do not hear any noises from our other surrounding neighbors. This house was remodeled prior to our purchase of our home. If the house located at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, is remodeled to a two story structure it will invade our privacy and tranquility of our Rica Linda Home from the South East. 5o now, we will have invasion tram the South East and West. Our Home and backyard will be like living in a fishbowl. We do not want to face the potential loss of our beloved trees, bushes and privacy in our backyard due to this remodel. No more privacy or quiet tranquility. Vete will have lost all of the peace, privacy and tranquility our Home has brought to us overthe years, It will all be lost forever because of the wishes of someone new to our neighborhood. 1-93 Our new neighbor should comply with the style, scope and appearance of our neighborhood and our surrounding area and not be permitted to build such a large two story, 4000 square foot structure. He should build a single story that fits in with the area and not change all of our lives forever! Thank you in advance for reviewing our letter and the attached Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa, Chive, R.R.V. CA. Sincerely, Donald and Betty Brogdon 1-94 From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, X14 10:33 AM To. Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Comments on RPV Planning Division Case No, ZON2014-00054 Attachments: Letter to CC on Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa -2014 12_08-DG-c.pdf Hello, Please include the email below and the attachment In the late correspondence. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30340 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdeS.corn/rpv/planning/planning-zor)ing/index,cfm (310) 544-522F—(310) 544-5293 f Leza m@ rpvxorrr -----Original Message ----- From: Donald Brogden[mailto.donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 2:46 PM To: CC Cc. Leza Mikhail Subject: Comments on RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 To: City Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Cc.: Ms, Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: Donald Brogdon, 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-377-5783, donaldbrogdon@yahoo_com Date: December 8, 2014 Subject: Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, R.P.V. CA. Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Dear Honorable Members of City Council, My wife and I moved to Rancho Palos Verdes over 12 years ago. After looking at many homes in this area we decided to make our permanent residence at 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. we chose this property primarily because of the backyard. It is beautifully landscaped and has a very secluded tranquil feeling that we really cherish when we go back to sit, relax, and enjoy our beautiful, private surroundings, especially, our Japanese Cherry Trees and Avocado Tree. In the spring the Cherry trees show a beautiful blossom that we really enjoy, We drive long distances daily and after the long commute we enjoy the private quiet calm and peaceful surroundings of our home. In our backyard directly to the west there is a huge two story house that impedes our privacy and blocks some of our view of the Pacific Ocean_ The majority of the time we hear his alarm clack, radio, music, television, and lour) conversations that wake us up at night or early in the morning because it blares directly into our bedroom, we do not hear any noises from our rather surrounding neighbors. This house was remodeled prior to our purchase of our home, If the house located at 6821 Villa Rosa Drive, is remodeled to a two story structure it will invade our privacy and tranquility of our Rio Linda Horne from the South East. So now, we will have invasion from the South East and West. Our Horne and backyard will be like living in a fishbowl. We do not want to face the potential loss of our beloved trees, bushes and privacy in our back yard due to this remodel. No more privacy or quiet tranquility. we will have lost all of the peace, privacy and tranquility our Home has brought to us over the years. It will all be lost forever because of the wishes of someone new to our neighborhood. Our new neighbor should comply with the style, scope and appearance of our neighborhood and our surrounding area and not be permitted to build such a large two story, 4000 square foot structure. He should build a single story that fits in with the area and not change all of our lives forever! Thank you in advance for reviewing our letter and the attached Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application at 6321 Willa Rosa. Drive, R.P.V. CA. Sincerely, Donald and Betty Brogdon 1-96 To; City COLIItCil, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, (,A C:c., Ms. l,era ;Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From, Donald and Betty Brogdon, 6338 Rio 1_inda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-377-5783, donaldbi-ogdckn,,ii:yahan.copt Date, I)ccernber 8, 2014 'Subject, Request to uphold the Planning Cummission's denial ofthe height variation application at 6421 Villa Rosa. Reforencc; RPV Planning Division Case No. Z{3N 2014-00064 Deal- I loncrabic Mcmbers of City Council, We respcctfully request that the City Council uphold the Planning C'ommission's denial ofthe height variaion application by Peachtrcr Family'Frust at 6321 Villa Rasa, The proposQd two-story Nmodcl % ili not be compatible with the neighborhood because it degrades the strcctscape, blacks views and infringes on privacy. %Yc would like to Sm it sinule-story design that would be more compatible with (lie neighborhoott. As much as ?,700 sq -ii (excliOng garage) can be obtained %vith a single -story design.'fherefore the two-story dt:sign can be avoided. Photo 1+ tMasAve 2 --story remodel. at 6321 Vila Rosft Page 1 of 4 1-97 (J)Two-story design not coni 'fatihle with neighborhood As shown in Phutu 1 above, the proposer{ two-story remodel appears marc like a INvo-and-a-half-story high structure on the sloped Villa Rosa street. The proposed two- storp structcare l5 710E Collll}atlble wvltll the neighborhood that ct}71SI4iS nit}$t14' {}f(N1E'-4tCb1`Y' 1101.1ses whcrc the aVCr gC square fomage is around 1,900 sq-ft.'fhe twu-story design will d ismrb the rhyme of the streetscapc of the narrt}wv V ilia Rosa 5trect (about 28ft from curb to curb). Tho twvn-story design will result in a substantial loss of"air and light" i'or many ncibhbors. If is proposed two-story remodel b"olncs a precedent For the. Iuturc development in this neighborhood, the propagation of this iype of -two-story home will change the character or the neighborhood forever, depriving open "air and light" that is the hallmark of -Rancho Palos Verdes. liel't}rc the passage Of Measurc M, the pop-up over the garage and a two-story house were approved on Villa Rosa resulting in detrimental effects on the streetscape of Villa Rosa, blocking ocean views, and infrirtgin� on privacy of neighbors. The saline mistake should not be allowed to occur main_ (2) Severe impact can Our Properly Thi: proposed nvo-story remodel is abutting the !youth East corner of our propQrty at 0328 Rio Linda Drive, We are already encumbered by the twvo-story house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive that was approved before Measure M Nvas passed (sec Photo 2 below). itiowv if1he proposed two straw' structure at 6.121 Villa Rm a Drive is built, we %v'ilI have obstruction to our hone from boll) the Sacath Fast and West dirG.xlions. We will be, livin8 in a fish howl. Serenity in our backyard and privacy in our living quarters will be gone and otar house Will be changed forever. If the proposed two-story remodel is approml, 111C Situation could get even worst I'm us because the, neighbor immediately bohintl las on the South side at 6329 Villa Rosa is Oinking about telling a future buyer of"their house that a two-story structure can be built based on a precedent set by this case. The imaginary view ofthc two-story structure at 6329 Villa Rosa is shown in Photo 3 below, demonstrating, how our privacy would be impacted. Please alotc that trees along the property borders the not an effective means to mitigaac privacy itafi`ingeanent because trees ire porous and leaves will filll seasonally. Page. 2 ofit 4mppppp l'a:'. "ice �•'� R�, ! or 40, l Alcor • X iii t+ f� y y (3) Taking away precious views from neighburs Many of its enjoy the setting sun hovering over the horizon. The height above 16 acct will take av---ay views being enioyed by neighbrors. Ifthis type of'twn-stury structure propagates in the neighborhood, more precious views will he taken .away, and the neighhorhood character will be changed fbrcver. (4) Not complying with RPV guidelines % e Oelieve that the proposed remodel does not fully adhere to key guidelines described in the "Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook" ('tiCll•{) and thy; "Guidelines and Procedures for Height Varication Permits" (MV). Some of these guidelinasarc listed below, A) The height ol'a structure: should be compatible with established building heights in the neighborhood (NCI I page: 21, 11,1)- B) The htdk and of the new residence or an addition to an etisting residerlCC should be similar to neighboring structurvs, not overwheliuing or disproportionatc in size. A design that is Out of character with the neighborhood is strongly disGourngcc{ (NCI I pac t 28). C) The proposed structure should be compatible with immediate neighborhood character. "Neighborhood ch:aractcr" is de{inod to uonsidcr the existing characteristics of an urea. including; (n) Scale ol'surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures. (b) Architectural styles, including, facade treatments, structure height, open space between strueAures, roof design, the; apparent bulkpr naa35 c�ftho structure, nuinhGr of stories, and building materials (PHS' page 15). D) The structure should enhance the rhyme of the streetscrapc (NCII l page 27) 1) The height of a strwcture that is above. 16 feet in height does not result in an unreasonable infrittgeancot 0rti, e privacy of the ocetipantsofabut (ing residences (PHV pace 15) F) The; height of a structure shuule{ be carefully designed to respect views from the viewving aIVU of nCighboring properties (NCH page 21 B.S, PHV page 13). Page 4 ol'4 1-100 From; Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:54 AM To: William Sheh Cc-, CC; aoet Rojas; Carolynn Petry; Dan Landon Subject: FW: Missing correspondence in the staff report, 6321 Villa Rosa Remodel Attachments: Appeal for 6321 Villa Rosa Drive.pdf; Appeal for 6321 Villa Rosa Drive.pdf; Appeal for 6321 Villa Rasa Drive.pdf; Appeal for 6321 Villa Rosa Drive,pdf; Appeal for 6321 Villa Rosa Drive.pdf; ATT000(Di.txt Hello Mr. Sheh, Thank you for the attached emails. As each email states the same, I will include the email to the Mayor as part of the Late Correspondence. l will also ask that our IT staff loo/; into our system to see why I did not receive the original email that you sent, as that is a concern of ours_ Thank you, Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palc)sverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv,Gom -----Original Message ----- From. William Sheh (mailto:wsheh@tectoweld.com) Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:47 AM To: Leza Mikhail Cc: CC; Joel Rojas;. Carolynn Petru; Dan Landon Subject; ire: Missing correspondence in the staff report, £321 Villa Rosa Remodel Ms. Mikhail, Thank you forgetting bark to me quickly this morning. Attached are copies of the emails I sent. Please pick the one you see most appropriate. Sincerely, William Sheh I rs—; William 81reh i ..'.... 1. i `;•=,:{" Anocallot 8321 Villa RosaDfivo December 8, 2014 at 2;25 PIVI l.e7a M-khail •; „ ;, Ocar Councilman Knight. The 49PV Planning Commi55io31 did an oulvan[sinJ jUb of reviewing [tie heighl variation aaplscation al 63 1 Villi Rosa Drive. They carefully lis[enod, considered and upheld Ihv r•.are spin) of theci[y' tii9asurc hd Ir>rdislahuii and neghborhoQUo Tlpatiyililyreguirements. Irk doing so they correctly denied the applicant the variation he sought to put a mass;a'e ASOO* sq. It. home an one of the smallosi lots on This narrow and eurvcw street_ Hawrwer thr upcoming appeal r)f this denial has once again cause much concern among the long lime residenisof this neighharh000. I understand the nghtoi the appricant to appcalihe cienial, but I hope the cilycouncd wilido O*correcl lhing anti uphr)ld tete denial of the nrig:nal planning commission decision. There is a peliilion of well over 60 longtime residents of 1hiscommunity in support of lw planning coir.inissions aeci 1;ni. I hope this underscores the serisyr5nes-s of the pon{vrns wy all have about to 1he ba5ic characlor of ;he city we all live in and love. Las11y I would like to take lhis oppu,tundy to invite you io my house and patsanally experience ihel [rHrlrenJous delrimenl¢I vfsua: imoaci this; prop;rsed rr.mudel pre5en15 to the immeciate. adjacent Fames ar_d the neighborhood in general. S incere IV. Wilhaw Shen 6315 VIlla Rosa Or. Rancho NalOs'Verdes 1-102 From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:24 AM To. William 5heh Cc: CC; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru; Dan Landon} Subject: RE: Missing correspondence in the staff report, 6321 Villa Rosa Remodel Hello Mr. Sheh, Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I do not see a cornrrtent letter in my emails from your email address. It sounds as though you sent multiple emails. Similar to you, I am concerned that I did not receive any of your past emails. Would you be able t4 forward them to me and I will be sure to include them in the late correspondence to the City Council. In the meantime, I will also ask that our IT staff look to see if any of your previous emails were received. It would be best if you could forward your email with the date stamp of Monday, Dec. 8, 2014 at 2;25pm so that I can include it in the late correspondence. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/plannir)g-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam @rpv.corn -----Original Message ----- From: William 5hoh [mailto:wsheh@tectoweld.com] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 11:52 AM TD: Leza Mikhail Cc, CC Subject: Missing correspondence in the staff report, 6321 villa Rosa Remodel Importance: High Dear Ms. Mikhail, I fust had a chance to review staff report to the upcoming city council hearing regarding the remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. I am troubled that none of my emails to each city council member and yourself were included in this report, yet letters from the only supporter of this project, Mrs. Erickson, was in there twice, As an immediate neighbor of this ill conceived project, 1 believe my opinions are just as important as any neighbor of this project. To not see it included in the staff report is very unsettling and raises some serious questions whether there were any other correspondence that may have not been disclosed. The last of my six emails was time stamped on Monday, Dec. 8, 2014 at 2,25prn; it was before the cut off time for correspondences relating to this agenda item. 1 certainly hope this was just some clerical oversight and look forward to receiving a response from you before the hearing next week. Since rely, William Sheh 6315 Villa Rosas Drive 1-104 From: Lena Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:38 AM To: Carla Marreale, Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: 6321 Villa Rasa Dr_.pdf Attachments- 6321 villa Rosa Dr,.pdf, ATTQ0001.txt Hello, Please include the attachment in the late correspondence. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30340 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoninglindex_cfm (3XO) 544-5228 (310) 544-5293 f lezarm@rpv.c0m -----Original Message-- - From. Sayed Hassan [mailt0.sh2800@hotmaiLcom] Sent; Monday, December 15, 2014 8:40 AM To: Leza Mikhail Subject: 6.321 Villa Rosa Dr„pdf December - 20% Leza klikhail, kssac:ate PLgrter City m Rancho Palos Verdss 34940 Haipghorne elvc. R -incho Paltos Verdes, CA ra0275 r;e; Support for `jingle. Family i-iousa Project -- 6321 Villa Rana -- Even Salter tl ao jrn c3eptember! Dear Leta. •. ha _yrs the silhouette as well a�; the plans for the proposed two-stary addition Sirlco the project was firs: propoSed in on Febfuefy the architect hay significantly reduced the tioight, mass and made the lior.l;e roinplotely compatible with the sirl•gle and twu story hOLL188% in I-', COM rf)unity i %volAid be proua to wok arld drive past ii evwy day. -Orcerlis expressed by other neighbors about rebuilding houties in this neighborf�aod with eonr: _coyie5 is uvay overblown and exaggerated_ I never kava understood this-- the homes p)at do have t -.:o storiVs arQ artra.iive and hove increasers the property values of all houses iF] the cwnrnuni;y •- .vilelhorone-or +A•S�Ury. i _irgo the City Counck to approve the addition to this himie• Y")LIN Truly, 1-106 1i71'L•/014 Froin: x'762" cCCI'r1Ei(c)?� �I.S Dr I'' To: cc <cc;@grpv_cnrn} Subject: 5:321 +fiIla Rosa Drive! A40ition Date: Fri, Ue,• 2, 20'.4 ti:i''j Fm Ciro Cotwc I city of P.Mo:; tiperdv!i 30940 Hraw0wme BkKi_ Rnrc:ho Pitic;ti Verdmi. CA 902'1li W21':;I :''�:::j Dr. -r. Niul.rr. Alien Osborne 433143 V -t a Rosa Drive Hatrcl-o Palos Verdes CA 90275 Rs:: Suppcxt 6321 VilB Rosa - • rc; Rve,isecl :kv air t»ty Ol'unt;Il Momh'!n; As a 3:1r yt:a vsici,,nl end membri of the cor .wily ty, I ars. v %%ng ,o ext)rcS!L my intuiun;t i1 and ,i-,pport of the Froj€re. is! 6321 Villa rdn!;a Dik*. I resift two hcuses west l thf� Fla5sa'1 l'arnil%-. I or- not aril )iEi i!t favor o'.• tht', idea 1181 NJa,llhjfgt:r Hill. nr mor#t rr;t(mily, EnM 1.n5 Verdes-, t hould 1"X Moir v trwt.l of single story hc•mc;-, •lhe Mc, is that pumitted. builc!inij & saaf(:ty C'0n);jl:af1t AtUCtUeOS, irTll)fOW ll',c; value of ine neignbortYr•)r)rl urd city. 71.ra original svueturns of the: 196Q's era wort: ai)d ;im substandard irl c;ors:ARICtiOrl and shoulri nol be hauled .rt; staslus yur) nor a regjircd contigUration. After Knisiot`s a3rla earnest e'torts to 5r)f%c!ase 9104* Honle OwriPr ht;;ryclatitxs mir,(sec ncignt)ors, the H.isseins navc erriw.-d ai ai proposal thea takes into consideration asod rneets w`ttl Lha c:iry's protf uo! rarja,rd 'ng paatiuc y, %Puro c:hslf-x or), chars (wn and aiesthe'.ics_ Any :and ci%vner should ha'& the frvudu^1 io imprcu their propery ns 'hey s;ce 9: prowi(.ml they oru in c-)iTjpUanu•(-: '•e,3131 the rules and rr.Cjulatlols so: forth oaf the city. 5econo story arldrt ons •ocluded ll)e Hiissar,.s ore ii kimily of'seh:l18rid s•lould haw. tl>,P ronihi and sipacc this vdd•tion will proaidc . aarr cmbt rrasssed and frustfated by [lip sentiments and actio ri% of thosr: opposec; in the ad;iitian. L'5p cuilly ihosc, vMo iesire in homes that haw a second st. v add tion and those: who nre ;n no way af=ec ivl by the: I ia;:s.ul's proposad additior. 11,Dse in irnmed,alte proximity holm•: been 'lemd and r eAsiprit; have been inado. No one e ur gets exactly v. -hat the y Wart. A compromise: must be reac4.c;d. It is, after all, Tiff: I home Plo%m� ppprow. th.s projr:ct. a3 r4evisvrl. It is a positive add!Tion 110 our !1g:c1r1hOr1DG[I. commurliuyr 8'1t: Great city. Ftf';pectfuljy, Alrleri sborne '-II';I"PAcor•i.l.` ki '.4`1'Vxi Ii1c•U.J�Y1?I;'rai;A!L•.ic{R,If?;,,i,Fx IM 1-107 PEACHTREE FAMILY TRUST .61321VILLAROSA OF, RANCHO PALOS VERDES 90276, This, letter- is to advice you that we are a neighbor of Mr. Hassan :,n Villa Rosa Dr We believe. thai Mr. Hassan's plans to improve his home will enhance the value of not only his ho -no but aiGo the entire neighborhood. We agree that the improvements to Mr, HAssan's home are not Qbjectionable but to the contrary ii will be good for QLjr neighbornood.When you beautify the hornes in our ne-ighborhood it is great lar the, a -rep, - %PAt desire to see the city of Rancho Palos Verdes approve Mr. Hassan plans ex p e 01 i-',. i Q us , Y. Name AddrePss jr Siunature- V, n f' kAel kA cy',4� kip CUiLLA f� V e"A -j 1-108 0- I-A-7ja A'Oer-u T115W, PAr"'�Ir' rar �P-Z.P, ;wr. :k�r,-t: 've-00--� SVV aqrl Planning Commission- AftJ%r.A4?', , as- ag2r. xoeie %-, amwrj the public he&, -h-9 on December 16, 2014. cr,r-pr-w.minq T* acriwe = I.. re appese the demian to deny the additions rerp.00-vo-4d Tw- --.wem -Y !I-*. -c,7* me 6321 Villa Rosa DrOve, 1 do want to reiterate nny -W-r: ,Or ne pryvpbic'% happen to be next door to mine, With Nimnr; a O*r.-ua-j -rxne ar,—:Fsa �Ae Vl,-e -.41om r -re and also to ft west side, i have no pf.&UP-1-r- -Alon- '`APs vje,.rr ,,;a iaW !Dm to accaTvnodate their family of seven. Froe-I �9� 11ped r... tw „resa--r, - irx semml, nxr.&js now and I know they are living ,eery r7arr.W., a-P-.r4r%xfir~ b#-=. -his a a vvy nce, friendly and quiet family and I arm riappy " r �- 14. t-ey can *ft ID --nUirge, ftwy should be allowed to do . � e.-, v ' I -s- 11 -pe ' W ' *,, " ?=w, to n &Wp at4 9M to tWir home. ,acqc4 OFe Than* art V C -cd b. fF-w y.vj afi, Ax, sl!,erry ar. 1-109 Frnm: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:19 AM To: Raymond Nuber Cc: CC Subject: RE: 16 Dec RPV CC Agenda Item: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a height variation at 6321 Villa Rosa Think you for your comments, I will be surae to include them in the late correspondence to the City Council. Leza Mikhaill Associate Planner L(Ytof 1y cinctio'Patos `i%crdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www,oalosygrcies_cam r v _IanninKtpfanning-tonin index.crm. (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam@rpv.com From: Raymond Nubez [mail to: raymond_nuber@cox_netj Sent: Sunday, December 14, 20141:33 PM To. Jerry puhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: 16 Dec RPV CC Agenda Item: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a height variation at 6321 Villa Rosa Dear Members of the RPV City Council: I'm contacting you on behalf of the largest group of concerned citizens regarding an RPV City Council Agenda Item scheduled far. 16 December. Specially, the Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denyinga heiehtvariation at 6321 Villa Rosa. We've collected more than 70 signatures on our petition .supporting your Planning Commission's decision to deny this application. We're confident we represent the majority of our city's voters on this issue, and we expect you are aware or the high visibility that the concern for McMansionization has obtained in during the last couple of years, We want to meet with you to discuss our concerns before the 16 December meeting, WO suggest meeting in our neighborhood, which is orf Hawthorne Boulevard near Granvia Altamira, at a time that works best for you. This location would allow you to See our concerns for yourself, Please reply as to what di►y/time works best for you, and whether you prefer a meeting location outside of our neighborhood, by contacting me via phone at 310-344-6615. We look forward to your reply. With Respect, Raymond Nuber From: Leza Mikhail Sent; Monday, December 15, 2014 9:19 AM To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Invitation for on-site inspection of 6321 Villa Rosa Remodel from our property HeJlo, Please inc-lurle this ernail in the Late Correspwidence. to the City Council. l'he concerned residence sent an individual email to each Council member- the information in carh email is the same. As such, 1 {3m only inrl0dirtf7, the email to the Mlyor as dart of the Late Correspon6enee. Thimk you, Lcza Mikhail Associate Planner LCry of 'Xgncira 'Pa(" `Pierdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www,palysverdes.Egmhv plarinirl dplanning-zoning/index,cfm (310) 544-6228 -- (310) 544-5293 f lezarn ar y,�M From. AkemichiYamada (ma ilto:akerniCl1i@uverizon,net] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 20141:16 PM To: Jim Knight Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Invitation for on-site inspection of 6321 Villa Rosa Remodel from our property Reference: Case #ZON2014-000134, Height Variance at 9321 Villa Rosa Subject: Invitation for inspecting the proposed remodel from our backyard Dear Honorable Mayor Knight: Our property is abutting the proposed remodel. This will infringe on our privacy in our backyard and living quarters as shown below. We would appreciate if you can inspect the proposed 2 -story ramodei at 6321 Villa Rosa from our backyard. Please feel free to come and inspect any time at your convenience. Akemichi Yamada 6324 Rio Linda Dr., RPV 310-544-4525 View of the remodel from 6320 Rio Lind<,, Direct view from 3 windows: 48,N48" 361px24A P I I Infringing on privacy in backyard and living quarters Photo taken at approx. 45 feet from the windows Locations and sizes of windows shown are, 1-113 From: Matthew Golding <MATTOAWN@C0X.NET> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:14 AM To: cc Cc, Lexa Mikhail Subject: 6321 Villa Rosa City Council, 1 was hopeful that I could attend tomorrow night's City Council Meeting and voice/show my continued Support of my neighborhs against the planned 2 story addition at 6321 Villa Rosa. Unfortunately, due to a last minute change in my schedule I will be unable to make the meeting. in short, as you have heard a few times now -from my past emails, although I am completely supportive of home improvements/expansions and the lung term upgrade of my neighborhood, I continue to feel that this project is still too massive an undertaking, I am VERY concerned that a precedent will be set and this could pave the way for other large, 2 story projects in our area- and on my street Monero Dr, Tha nk you, Matthew Golding 6263 Monero Dr From. I-eza Mikhail Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8;28 AM To: Carla Morreale: 'reresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Suppoiting the denial decision of the Planning Commission on Case# ZON2014-00064 Attachments: Impacts of Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa_2014-12_05AY_c.pcif Hello...please include in tho latc correspowlence to the City Cooncil. Thank yOu, Uza Mikhail Associate Planner LCity of Rimcfiio,cOal'as'i enies Planning Department 30840 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 9D27$ www.pD losverdes.ComJrpvfplanninNjpldriniflg:l4rlin ind�x.CfrTl (310) 544-5228 - (310) 544-5293 f IezamArpv.cam From: Vincent Liu [mailto:vince88168 gmail,comj Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 4;21 PM To: CO Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Supporting the denial decision of the Planning Commission on Case# ZON201.4-OW64 Di:ur Members ol,C:ily Comic) 1, ani (lie owner of the house at 6320 Villa Rosa Dr., and I am wriong this to support thi dcniul decision of'the Planning Commission on Case-# /-ON2014-00064. Mark Zuckerburg, the founder of Face Book, purchased 4 homes surrounding his current home last year. The houses cost him more than $30 million, including one 2,604 square -foot home that cost $14 million. (His own home is twice as large at 5,000 square -feet and cost half as much, that's 7 million dollars,) Zuckerberg reportedly took action after he learned that a developer wanted to purchase one of his neighbor's homes and use the fact that Zuckerberg lived close by as a marketing tactic. He ended up leasing the four homes he just bought bade to its current residents. He doesn't want to live in excess, he just warns a little privacy. That little privacy is worthy of 30 million dollars. There is on old saying and I quote "Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you", with that I urge each and every member of the C-Ity Council, before you make the decision not to uphold the denial decision of the Planning Commission, please look at the Photo 2 as attached and assume your are the owner at 6320 Ilio Linda and ask yourself: " How much privacy & money it would take away from you if the 01Y C'OLM61 decided not to uphold the denial decision of the Planning Commission ? " Your kind support to uphold the denial decision of the Planning Commission is very much appreciated. Best Regards, Vincent Liu Owner/Resident at 6320 Villa Rosa Dr. 1-116 To: Cit; Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Cc.; Ms. Leta Mikhail, Associate Plannrr, City of Rancho Pvlris Verdes, CA From: Akemichi Y<nnada, 6320 laic) Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA _310-544-452>, .ikL!micl1i-' .efiron.ocr Dale, December ;i. 2014 Subject: Request to uphold the Planning Commission's denial oflhc height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa. Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00004 fact+r Honorable Members Of C*itv t OLUIcil, respectrully request that the City Council upheld the PIanninl7 iC'ominis5ion's denial of the height variation application by Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa. The, proposed two -stony remodel w i I I not be compatible with 1b neighborhoud Because it degrade., the street scape, blocks vit-ws and infringes on privacy. I liU to lice a single -story design that would be more compatible with the neighborhood. As much as 2,700 sq -ti (excluding; garage), which is 1xvice as rnu, lh as the current structure, can be obgained with a single -story design. Tbereibre the two -;:tory design can be avoided. (1) Fxcessive height, incompatible with neighborhood As shown in Photo 1 below, the proposed hyo -story minodel appears more lige a two-rind-a-hall'stc>ry high on the sloped Villa Rosa street_ 1'hc proposed htio-titory structure: is not compatible with the ncighborhood that consists mostly ofotw-story houses where the average square footage is around 1,900';q-4. The hvo-Oory design will disturb the rhyme of the streetscape ofthe narrow Villa Rosa Street (about 281 from curb to curb).'I'he hwi-star-y design will result in a substantial loss of"airand light" fbr many neighbors_ I Nb is proposed two-story remodel becomes a precedent fir the futurc dcvelupment in this neighborhood, developers will build memo iwo-story struct ares, The propagation oftwo-story houses will chant c t1w., character ofthc neighborhood 1isrkvcr, depriving operi "air and light" that is the I>allinark of'Ranchu Palos Verdes. B4 ibre the passage of Measure M, the pop-up over the garageand the two-story bottso Were: built on Villa Rosa resulting in detrimental efi'ect on the strcetscapL� ol'Villa Rosa, blockim,, ocean views. and infringing tart priviicy of neighbors, The saint ntisttike shajtild not be allowed to vueur again. (2) Infringement of Prii-acy The proposed two-stuU rcmodol is abutting our proper(y at 6320 Rio Linda Drive. As shown in Photo 2 below, there arc three proposed windows (487,x4s", 413"x24", and 36"x24") having direct view into our property (the back yard, sun roorn, dining room, master bed roorn and master bath room), We will be subjected to intrusive visual observation_ N e are refired, and are spending, tremendous amount of time in PaL;c 1 oJ'4 1-117 our sgan room and back yard. We like to preserve our privacy that we have enjoyed last 21 years. Please note that planting trees along the: propc)ly Ivrdcr is not an eliective means to mitigate privacy infrinl;ement because it takes a tote; tutee to grow, tall trees and trees are too porous. (3) 'faking away precious views from neighbors Many ul'us enjoy (lie soling sun huvizring aver Clic horizon, The height above 16 Ivel will take away views being 4njoyed by neighbors. if hvo-stnry stn.tcturns of this type }propagate in the neighborhood, more precious views � ill be taken away and the neighborhood character wi11 he changed forever. (4) Creating parking problems on Villa Dasa Villa Rosa i5 a marrow dead-end street (only ?$ feet from curb to curb) and a] ready has harking problen►s, People: have diflicuities finding adecluate spafxs for placing, trash bins oil a collcction clay, Ail emergency vehicle can hardly manimver on the street. II' larger hones are guilt, the street ;+•ill be tilled with additional parked cars crenting scrious problems, Photo I, N1 sr t-;ive 2 -story renindel at 6321 Villa Russe MW Nage 2 of 4 1-118 Photo 2, View from 6320 laic: Linda Drive Direct view from 3 windows: 48"x48", 3 N24" Infringing on our privacy in backyard . 1 - ........ •,. .....,.. i"�+ i .... .-.... _. := mum •',:v.V'vS•'Ja+txL•�r-ail-'d�SiSt+�64t_ Mti•AE4�t +,•,•tJ���r+r!!L•+uTlxllt�nl .•...,•-•--•,••,,••••••,•••••--,•••••,•,•••••..•••,•••,•••-••• Locations and sizes of windows shown are approximate. (5) Not corn plyiy:g with guidelines set by NY4' J believe that the proposed remodel dtw,, not adhere to kc)• gUidelinew dUSCribed ill the "Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook" (NC 11) and the "Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Perrtnit," (PHV). Some of these guidelines are listed below - A) The height of -a structure Should be compatible with established building heights in the neighborhood (NCH page 21, D.1). B) The bulk and mass of the tim residence or ati addition to an 4=xisting residence should be similar to neighboring structures, not overwiximing car disproportionate in size, A design that i5 out of character with the neighborhood is strongly disconragetl (NC 14 page 2x). C) "Clic proposed structure slmt,ld be compatible will: immediate neighborhood character, "Ncighborhood character" is dclined to consider the existing characteristics of an area, including, fav 3 of 4 1-119 (a) Scale Of surrounding residence;, including total SgUare ibotage and lot covcragc: cif the residence and all atncillairy structures. (b) Architectural styles, including facade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mas4 of the structure, number ol'stories, and building matorials (PHV page 15). I7) The structure should ernhance the rhyme ofthe streetscape (NCI T page: 27) 1r) The height ol'a structure that is above 16 feet in height docs not re=sult in an unreasonable inCringcment ol'the privacy of -the occ=upants ol'abut ing roside;ncc:s (111 IV page l5) F) The height of a structure should be carefully designed to mspoct view} , tion the viewing area of neighboring properties (NC1 I page 21 13.5, PE IV page 1.3), Page 4 of 4 1-120 from, Sent: To: Subject: City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 oz026@aol.corn Friday, December 12, 2014 8:23 PM cc 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Addition Arlen Osborne 643 Villa Rasa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90276 Re: Support -- 6321 Villa Rasa Drive -- As Revised Dear City Council Members. As a 30+ year resident and member of the community, I am writing to express my interest iri and support of the project at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. I reside two houses west of the Hassan Family, I am not and have never been in favor of the idea that Hamburger Hill, or more recently, East Los Verdes, should remain a tract of single story homes. The fact is that properly permitted, building & safety compliant structures improve the value of the neighborhood and city. The original structures of the 1960's era were and are substandard in construction and should not be hailed as status quo nor a required configuration. After numerous revisions and earnest efforts to appease those Home Owner Association minden neighbors, the Hassans have arrived at a proposal that takes into consideration and meets with the city's protocol regarding privacy, view obstruction, character and aesthetics. Any land owner should have the freedom to improve their property as they see fit, provided they are in compliance with the rules and regulations set forth by the city, second story additions included. The Hassans are a family of seven and should have the comfort and space this addition will provide. t am embarrassed and frustrated by the sentiments and actions of those opposed to the addition. Especially those who reside in homes that have a second story addition and those who are in no way affected by the Hassan's proposed addition. Those in immediate proximity have been heard and revisions have been made. No one ever gets exactly what they want A compromise must be reached. It is, after all, The Hassan's home. Please approve this project. as revised. It is a positive addition to our neighborhood. community and great city. Respectfully, Arlen Osborne 1-121 From; rateles ;raeles@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 11.51 PM To: Leza Mikhail C[t CC Subject: Copy of letter sent regarding 6321 Villa Rosa Dr Attachments: Tanchuin farnily.doc WE are unable to attend the meeting, Kindly see that our letter (copy attached) is presented along with others from our neighborhood. Thank you r�i •�tii»�+�r rs,1�Y�I�rt1,��, Rael & Lesley Tenchum 6427 Monero Drive R.P.V. CA. 90275 raelesMom net 1-122 / ranchurn Family 6427 Monera Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 12/5/2014 Dear Ms Mikhail, We are writing in support of the Planning Commission's decision for the property 6321 villa Rosa Drive, and hope that common sense within our City Council will prevail and that this decision will be upheld. We love our neighborhood just the way it isl Thank you, R. Tanchum Family 1-123 From: Kevin tkevin@c2services.com> Sent: Sunday, [december 14, 2014 9,43 AM To: CC Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Dec 16th appeal hearing invitation I)ear Council Menthers. A reminder that WC would like 10 extcrnd an invitation to you to conic visit us. discuss (lie proposed project at 6321 Villa lac}:sa and we the neighborhood first hand. We would be happy to meet with you at your convenience_ Just let us knew in advance so we can accommodate Your,sclIrd«lc. Thank You and look forward to meeting Yau_ Kovin 1lam lit on & Mary Doth CorTado 6309 Villa Rosa Ranclio Palos 'Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 560-63-831 (cell) 1-124 City cf Ranch{) qi�los V4rdris December, 2014 SEC �� 6 laid city Menager's C�f9ic.2 City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, SCA 90275 Re: Support — 6321 Villa Rose – Completely Downsized Dear City Council Members, Given our frequent experience of walking and driving in our neighborhood and viewing the revised project W we are happy that the proposed two-story addition will not have an impact on privacy, views or bulk and mass. They have really stepped up to the plate to redesign a homerun project that the community should embrace in regards to compatibility and privacy. I find the amount of opposition to this project to be unreasonable to the community at Jarge, and to the Hassan Family_ The house size has been dramatically reduced, presents well from all sides, and should be supported- And•_!Mat is most frrtSf Long, is 1179 untrue arournent that Los Verdes is .Q skale story n9FgM!2rhagof:_ ng--co-ufs -ke. no i=at in2w the truth. The She Family to the east should acknowledge the sincere effort and result of the architect and applicant to eliminate all the privacy impacts from the balcony on the south side or any other sections of the home that were an issue, reduce the amount of the expansion to have less of the mass and bulk, and provide a ranch style home to be as compatible with the neighborhood as possible and provide a new and beautiful home to increase property values of all our homes. It is noticed by all these changes the client has made that the applicant really respects the She family and whoever else Jives in this neighborhood, This project appears to be of high quality, acrd is not out of character or scale with other two-story homes in our neighborhood. Please approve this project. It is a very positive addition to our community Yours truly, � � C�.�.�o•..t�-�...�.. 1-125 i To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council As a 42 year resident. I am writing to ask the Council to uphold the Planning Commission denial of the Height Variation at 6321 Villa Rosa. 6358 Villa Rosa City of Rancho Palos Verdes DEC 15 2014 City Manager's Office Letter of Appeal (received September 24, 2014) 1-127 DAVID MOSS & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Permitting / Environmental Compliance / Development Consultation 613 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 105, Santa Monica, CA 90401, Tel 310.395.3481, Fax 310.395.8191 Via Hand Delivery September 24, 2014 Leza Mikael, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-7702 S(T 2 4 2 014 'COMMUNITY Dt'VELOPMENT PARTME T Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review - Case No. ZON2014-00064 for property located at 6321 Villa Rosa. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Hassan and Peachtree Family Trust (collectively, "Appellant") we are appealing the above- referenced Planning Commission ("Commission") decision. At the direction of Staff, we are providing this appeal in letter form. A description of the project being appealed and the basis for the appeal are set forth below. Based on the Notice of Decision dated September 10, 2014 the appeal must be filed by 5:30 PM, September 24, 2014. This has been confirmed with Planning Staff in writing as well. A filing check in the amount of $2,275 is provided. As staff is aware, the Commission made a recommendation that the City Council waive the appeal fee. Staff says it cannot accommodate the recommendation, but that the recommendation will be considered by the Council as part of the appeal process. And, that under current City procedure, if the Appellant is successful in overturning the Commission's denial, that the filing fee would be refunded in entirety. Description of Project and Decision Being Appealed On February 10, 2014 the Applicant submitted an application for a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review Application to construct a 2,098 sq. ft. second floor addition and a 516 sq ft first floor addition to an existing one-story, 1,424 sq. ft. single-family residence owned and occupied by the Hassan family. The project included a total of four balconies - two along the front facade and two along the rear facade. On May 27, 2014, the Commission (i) considered the entitlement request, (ii) continued the hearing, and (iii) suggested the Applicant redesign the project to mitigate potentially significant view impairment ("PSVI"), privacy and neighborhood compatibility issues. At the July 8, 2014 hearing the Commission reviewed revised plans that included the elimination of the second floor addition over the existing 404 sq ft garage, increase in rear yard setbacks, elimination of both balconies along the rear facade of the second story, reduction in second story ceiling heights, reduction of the roof pitch, reduction in the overall square footage from 4,452 to 3,886 sq ft, and a reduction in maximum roof height to 23 ft 7 in. At the August 26, 2014 hearing the Commission reviewed revised plans that included the reduction in maximum structure height to 22 ft 7 in., an increased side yard setback to more than required by zoning code, and a further reduction in structure size from 3,886 to 3,841 sq ft (including the 404 sq ft garage). By that time, it was apparent to the Staff and all the Commissioners that there was no potentially unmitigated significant impact to either privacy nor view impairment (individual or cumulative). The record before the Commission shows that between the first Commission hearing on May 27, 2014 and the last (fourth) public hearing on August 26, 2014, the Appellant redesigned and downsized the project several times in an earnest attempt to mitigate applicable comments of the Commission, Staff and community. DMA, Inc.. Hassan 14 Appeal 9-24-14 1-128 Leza Mikael, Associate Planner September 24, 2014 Page 2 Description of Project and Decision Being Appealed (contd) The Commission has denied the project based only on one codified issue - compatibility with the immediate neighborhood character (Finding No. 8, Height Variation Guidelines, 4/20/04). The Appellant is appealing only the Commission's decision as it relates to this one Finding. On behalf of the Appellant, we intend to demonstrate that the Commission erred in not making Finding No. 8 and approving the project. How the Applicant is Aggrieved by the Decision 1) The Commission did not fully grasp or properly consider the basis for Staffs evaluation or recommendation - July 8, 2014 Hearing Date. Starting with the Staff Report for the July 8, 2014 hearing Staff was able to recommend support to the Commission to make Finding No. 8. Staff clearly explained orally and in the Staff Report why it was certain that all prior compatibility concerns had been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Staff listed the following revisions to the project as the basis of its recommendation in the July 8, 2014 Staff Report for making Finding No. 8: a) The appearance of the structure as seen from the street and the neighboring properties has been softened by reducing the overall square footage and footprint of the second floor and providing additional second story setbacks. b) Reduction in structure height. c) Reduction in proposed size from 4,452 to 3,886 sq ft (which includes the existing 404 sq ft garage) - for a net decrease of 566 sq ft. by eliminating portions of the second floor addition and both rear facade balconies. d) Increase of rear yard setback from 19 to 33 ft and increase in south and north side setbacks, in combination with the elimination of the rear yard balconies reduced the bulk and mass impacts of the second floor addition to less than significant as seen from 6309 Villa Rosa, and 6320 Rio Linda. 2) The Commission did not fully grasp or properly consider the basis for Staff's evaluation or recommendation - August 12 and 26, 2014 hearing dates. Staff consistently recommended approval of the project in the Staff Reports for the August 12 and 26, 2014 hearings. Staff was able to recommend support to the Commission to make Finding No. 8 based on Staffs carefully laid- out explanation as to why all prior compatibility concerns had been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Staff summarized the reasons for making Finding No. 8 as follows: a) In addition to the revisions to the plans made by the Applicant (now Appellant) on June 26, 2014, further revisions made on July 21, 2014 of the additional combined height reduction and the increased side yard setback fortified Staffs position to recommend support of the revised project as it relates to neighborhood compatibility. b) Staffs recommendation of support for the project in the above -referenced Staff Reports is based partly on the list of nine revisions that the Planning Commission previously directed the Applicant (now Appellant) to make and that Staff determined had been made (August 12 and 26/2014 Staff Report, Page 2, "Discussion") 3) The City failed to make vitally important hearing minutes available to the Appellant or its representatives. a) Contrary to common practice and likely to municipal codes as well, the failure of the City to make the minutes available for the public hearing of August 26, 2014 and the Commission review of the final Decision Resolution of September 10, 2014 has deprived the Appellant of due process. DMA, Inc.. Hassan 14 Appeal 9-24-14 1-129 Leza Mikael, Associate Planner September 24, 2014 Page 3 b) At the hearing of August 26, 2014 the Commission voted 3 to 4 on a motion to approve the project - which such motion failed to pass and then the Commission voted 6 to 1 to deny the project - which such motion passed. The minutes for the August 26, 2014 hearing which were unavailable by the bar date of September 24, 2014 to file an appeal are an important summary that provides the opinions of City staff as to the decision-making of the Commission, as well as summaries of testimony by Staff, interested 3rd parties, and the Applicant (now Appellant). Despite the possible availability of the video record, the Appellant and its representatives have been denied the opportunity to understand the basis of two consecutive motions from Staffs perspective that relate to a record of capricious and arbitrary consideration because of the fact that three commissioners who supported the project in the first motion subsequently changed their vote to denial in the second motion. c) At the hearing of September 9, 2014 the Commission voted 3 to 2 on a motion to approve Resolution 2014-24 for denial. The minutes for the September 9, 2014 action which were unavailable by the bar date of September 24, 2014 to file an appeal are an important summary that provides the opinions of the three members who voted for approval of the Resolution (i.e., denial of the project) and the two members who voted for denial of the Resolution (i.e. de facto approval of the project). Despite the possible availability of the video record, the Appellant and its representatives have been denied the opportunity to understand the basis of all five votes from Staff's perspective which should have been summarized in the minutes. 4) The Commission failed to approve the project despite the fact that the final revised plans included and reflected all the revisions the Commission previously wanted regarding height, mass balconies setbacks and articulation. a) The Commission directed the Appellant to make extensive revisions and despite making those revisions, failed to approve the project. b) In denying the project, the Commission majority incorrectly relied on one minor fact - that Finding No. 8 could not be made merely because the proposal was "for the second largest house on the second smallest lot". In doing so, the majority completely ignored the overwhelming evidence that Finding No. 8 could be made. 5) The Applicant is being deprived the right to construct a second floor addition that complies with the spirit and intent of the Municipal Code. Certain members of the Commission wrongly relied on or were swayed by (i) repetitive but non-factual testimony from two handfuls of opponents seeking no additional two-story homes in Los Verdes, and (ii) patently untrue statements from opponents that the Los Verdes community is a mature, subdivided neighborhood for which the original developers and the City intended no second story additions . Why the Commission Erred or Abused its Discretion 1) There is a lack of substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission's determination of a potentially significant impact to compatibility with the immediate neighborhood character. a) The revisions to the project have mitigated all previously stated concerns raised by the Commission through a series of four public hearings. b) Revised plans provide fully dimensioned and a hard -lined design that demonstrate mitigation to a level of insignificance of all potential impacts - not only relating to compatibility with the immediate neighborhood character, but also for privacy, view impairment, cumulative view impairment and compliance with all codified development standards. DMA, Inc.. Hassan 14 Appeal 9-24-14 1-130 Leza Mikael, Associate Planner September 24, 2014 Page 4 2) There is a preponderance of evidence that the Commission could make all Findings for approval. a) Staff correctly articulated in writing and orally in the Staff Reports of August 12 and 26, 2014 and in its testimony on August 26, 2014 the basis upon which all the Findings could be made. b) There is a significant lack of oral or written testimony that is sufficiently compelling by 3rd party opponents that all the Findings cannot be made. In particular, several late -comer testifiers who are not in the closer radius to the subject project joined with other more arguably affected/closer opponents after several hearings. These late comers were actually opposing - ultimately unsuccessfully - an unrelated second floor addition project located on Ella Road. In synergy, the banded -together opponents hoped to sway the Commission by shear number rather than articulating specific concerns against the subject project. The truth being - that many of the late comers knew nothing of the specifics of the extensive revisions made to the project over the course of four hearings and this appears in the record to have motivated at least one Commissioner away from approving the project - based solely on the impression of greater opposition to the specific project. The reality being, however, that the synergistic effect was to falsely demonstrate possible wider community opposition to any second floor addition - even one like the subject site for which the record shows the Commission could have made all the Findings, including No. 8. 3) Not all members of the Commission may have observed the silhouette(s) from important vantage points. The public record does not include proof that all six of the Commissioners who voted to deny the project at the August 26, 2014 hearing, or that all three of the Commissioners who supported the Resolution to deny the project at the September 9, 2014 public meeting conducted site visits after such times that significant changes were made to the project and the silhouette was reconfigured. Reliance on photographs or the testimony of 3rd party neighbors in opposition, or both - would not enable every Commissioner to make a fair and well thought out decision. The Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and uphold Staff's recommendation to approve the Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review. Further, on behalf of the Appellant, I respectfully request the right to provide additional substantive testimony orally and in writing, including rendered colors plans, photosimulations or other exhibits to further demonstrate that the Commission erred in not making Finding No. 8. If the minutes become available for the dates noted above, please provide me with copies. On behalf of the Appellant, we look forward to working closely with Staff during the appeal. We would like to work closely with Staff to schedule the appeal hearing on a mutually acceptable date to insure the Appellant has sufficient time to fully prepare. Sincerely, David E. Moss, President cc Appellant DMA, Inc.. Hassan 14 Appeal 9-24-14 1-131 September 10, 2014 CITYOF k Abst RANCHO PALOS VERDES C0MM(_,NI 1-Y DLVEL.01-IMLN1 DE -PARI -MEN T NOTICE OF DECISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has denied, without Prejudice, a Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review for the property located at 6321 Villa Rosa (Case No. ZON2014-00064). LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNER 6321 Villa Rosa. Peachtree Family Trust Any interested person may appeal this decision, in writing, to the City Council by September 24, 2014. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. The Department hours are from 7:30 a.m, to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Friday. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, at (310) 544-5228 or vie e-mail at.lezam@rpv.com. Joel Roja ,ACP Communi y D velopme Director Attachment: P.C. Resolution No. 2014-24 CC: Sam Hassan / 6321 Villa Rosa / Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Interested Parties List Interested Parties Email List 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD/ k,ANcHO I'4llri\F!:I)I S 'A H;)I�)��i� PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 / HI'll_1 _SIN' &,,;-I I E-MAIL: PLANNINGOR"\ OM i,\ \\',\ i \" -' 1 1-132 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A ONE AND TWO-STORY ADDITION, AND A RETAINING WALL AND EXCAVATION TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED PROJECT, ON AN EXISTING LOT LOCATED AT 6321 VILLA ROSA (CASE NO. ZON2014-00064). WHEREAS, on February 10, 2014, the applicant submitted a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application to the Community Development Department requesting approval of a one and two-story addition to an existing one-story single-family residence, and a 4'-0" tall retaining wall with associated grading to accommodate the project; and, WHEREAS, on February 27, 2014, the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, on March 14, 2014, March 20, 2014, March 25, 2014 and April 17, 2014, the applicant submitted additional information and revised plans; and, WHEREAS, on April 21, 2014, Staff deemed the project complete; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. Seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. Seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that ZON2014-00008 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Section 15303) since the project involves construction of an addition to an existing residence on a legally subdivided lot; and, WHEREAS, on May 27, 2014, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, 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. Given concerns raised with neighborhood compatibility, view impairment, and privacy impacts, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 8, 2014 to allow the applicant time to address the concerns raised by Staff, the Planning Commission and the public; and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the applicant submitted revised plans to the Community Development Department to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. The revisions included the elimination of the second story addition over P.C. Resolution No. 2014-24 Page 1 of 3 1-133 the garage, an increase in the rear yard setback from 19'-3" to 33'-8", elimination of balconies along the rear fagade of the second story addition, clerestory windows and one (1) standard window along the rear fagade of the second story, reduction in ceiling heights from 9'-0" to 8'-0" on the second floor, reduction in the roof pitch from 4:12 to 2.5:12, reduction in the square footage from 4,452 square feet to 3,886 square feet, reduction in the structure height from 25-5" to 23'-7" and second story setbacks from the first floor; and, WHEREAS, on July 8, 2014, the Planning Commission heard public testimony ��. and considered the merits of a revised project submitted by the applicant. The Planning ,.., Commission determined that the revised project continued to creat cumulative view impairment impacts to 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. and bulk and mass impacts due to the overall height and overall size of the structure. Given the continued concerns, after discussing potential design revision options with the applicant at the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 12, 2014 to allow the applicant time to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on July 21, 2014, the applicant submitted revised plans to the Community Development Department to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. The revisions included an additional reduction in structure height from 23'-7" to 22'-7, an increased side yard setback from 5'-0" to 6'-3", and a further reduced structure size from 3,886 square feet to 3,841 square feet; and, P� %r WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 26, 2014 without discussion on the merits of the project; and, �CWHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission heard public testimony and considered the merits of a project. Based on discussion at the August 26, 2014 hearing, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and directed Staff to return to the September 9, 2014 meeting with a Resolution to deny the project; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character as it creates bulk and mass impacts to the neighborhood. More specifically, the project is the second largest home in the neighborhood on the second smallest lot. Due to the overall square footage of the revised project, which is proposed at 3,841 square feet (garage included), the scale of the residence would alter the character of the immediate neighborhood. Section 2: Given the number of public hearings on the proposed project and the Applicant's continued efforts to redesign the project to meet the concerns of Staff, the neighborhood and the Planning Commission, in the event that the project is P.C. Resolution No. 2014-24 Page 2 of 3 1-134 appealed by the applicant to the City Council, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council waive the appeal fee established by Resolution of the City Council. Section 3: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, September 24, 2014. A $2,275 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on September 24, 2014. Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Reports, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, without prejudice, Case No. ZON2014-00064 for a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, and James NOES: Commissioner Cruikshank and Vice Chairman Nelson RECUSALS: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tomblin and Chairman Leon Gordon Leon Chairman Joel to AIC' j Com uni Dev pment Director; and, Secr of the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2014-24 Page 3 of 3 1-135