The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_12_16_01_Appeal_of_PC_Denial_6321_Villa_RosaCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Date: Subject: Subject Property: PUBLIC HEARING December 16, 2014 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) 6321 Villa Rosa 1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 2. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Associate Planner Mikhail 4. Public Testimony: 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: Appellants: David Moss representing Peachtree Family Trust Applicant: Same as above 1-1 Cn-YOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: 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, ACTIN ~MANAGER ~Pf> Project Planner: Leza Mikhail, Associate Plann \._lJ'YVV 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 1-2 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 1-3 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. Appeal of the P .C. Project Denial Project 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 fa9ade on east side, and 2'-0" from the first floor fa9ade 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. 1-4 Table 1: Project Comparison of Revisions presented to the Planning Commission Proposed Total Square Footage· Structure Height ~~di$tqry$elb~6~:.': from 1st Stqry ,( · 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 1st 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 impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as city-designated viewing areas. 3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. 1-5 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(8) 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 81h 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). 1-6 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. 1-7 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'-1 O" 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 1-8 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 nova, 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 121h 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 81h 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: 1. 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 1-9 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 Y2 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 previously to 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: 1-10 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 Y:z of the appeal fee shall be refunded to the successful Appellant. ATTACHMENTS • 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.C 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 1-11 • Project Plans 1-12 Letter of Appeal to the City Council (Received September 24, 2014) 1-13 DAVID MOSS & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Permitting I Environmental Compliance I 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 RECEIVED SW 24 2014 ·COMMUNITY DB\IElOPMENT l)IPA~TMENT 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. OMA, Inc .. Hassan 14 Appeal 9-24-14 1-14 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 Commiss ion did not fully grasp or pro perly consider the basis for Staff's 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 rea r 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 Co mmis s ion did not fully gras p or properly co ns ider the bas is for Staff's ev aluation 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 Staff's 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 Staff's position to recommend support of the revised project as it relates to neighborhood compatibility. b) Staff's 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 he ari ng 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 . OMA, Inc .. Hassan 14 Appeal 9-24-14 1-15 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 Staffs 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 compl ie s 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 . OMA, Inc . Hassan 14 Appeal 9-24-14 1-16 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 Co m m iss ion may have observed the silhouette(s ) from importa nt 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. Sin cere ly , David E . Moss, President cc Appellant OMA , Inc .. Hassan 14 Appeal 9-24 -14 1-17 CITY OF Rt\NCHO rJALOS VERDES CUMML;N\ rY DE:\it-1UPMEN"\ DEYAf~rMEN r September 10, 2014 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: 6321 Villa Rosa. PROPERTY OWNER: 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. Attachment: P.C. Resolution No. 2014-24 CC : Sam Hassan I 6321 Villa Rosa I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Interested Parties List Interested Parties Email List 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVO I f\:\r-<l :110 I "\!_I lS \ rnni ·s I :,\ )i);i h '):l· I\ !)LANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 / m '11.1'.'INl" & ·-;.,i I • ' ·· 1\ ",!1 "1 ,11,ll '• ,. -,,, 1 E-MAIL: PU\NNll"C~@I~! '\ r t 't'I v\\ \ '.\ i \" .._., · I ' -,,. '" ' .. . .... 1-18 the garage, an increase in the rear yard setback from 19'-3" to 33'-8", elimination of balconies along the rear fa9ade of the second story addition, clerestory windows and one (1) standard window along the rear fa9ade 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, 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; 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 1-19 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 gth 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 Joel Com Seer Gordon Leon Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2014-24 Page 3 of 3 1-20 Correspondence Letters to the City Council (for December 16, 2014 CC Meeting) 1-21 Sherry Erickson 6329 Villa Rosa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-3263 310-541-5284 sherryerickson@cox.net RECEIVED DEC 0 3 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT December 1, 2014 RPV Associate Planner Leza Mikhail 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Case #ZON2014-00064 Dear Leza and the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and Planning Commission: Although I am again unable to attend the public hearing on December 16, 2014, concerning the above Case #, the appeal of the decision to deny the additions requested by the owners of the home at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, I do want to reiterate my approval and agreement of the project which happens to be next door to mine. With having a two-story home across the street from me and also to the west side, I have no problem with this family building a larger home to accommodate their family of seven. They have lived in the present home for several months now and I know they are living very cramped and uncomfortable. This is a very nice, friendly and quiet family and I am happy they are my neighbors. If they can afford to enlarge, they should be allowed to do so. I do approve the de$ire they have to enlarge and add to their home. Thank you and God bless you all, 6 ..... ~ ry on 1-22 Date : December 8, 2014 To : City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 cc: Leza Mikhail Planning Department RECEIVED From: Kevin Hamilton & Mary Beth Corrado 6309 Villa Rosa DEC 0 8 2014 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Council Members, We request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission denial of the Height Variation request by the Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa. Considerable time and effort has been expended by the Commission reviewing the issue through 3 hearings. Below are the considerations to support that denial. 1. Excessive bulk and mass The 3,841 sq. ft. oversized structure is being built on the smallest lot in the 20 nearest homes. The relative size of this 5 bedroom is provided in the Figure 1 Comparison Graph. The structure is above 3 sigma in size (sq. ft.) for the homes on Villa Rosa, Rio Linda, Centuria, Monero and Alvarez Drives within the 500' notification area. The current 3,841 sq. ft. structure is more than 1,000 sq. ft. larger than either of the partial two (2) story homes on Villa Rosa (2,331 sq. ft @ 6314 Villa Rosa and 2,787 sq. ft. @ 6332 Villa Rosa). Home Size Comparison 4 ,500 4,000 3,841 so. 3,500 -+l 3,000 . u.. a- !!?.. 2,500 Cll N 2,203 so. ii) 2,000 . Cll E 1,500 0 ::c: 1,000 500 0 Proposed Average Figure 1. Home size comparison for 500' notification homes on Monero, Alvarez, Centuria, Rio Linda and Villa Rosa drives. 1-23 2. The architecture is incompatible with the neighborhood This structure is unlike anything in the neighborhood. There are no homes with similar architecture or style in the entire neighborhood development. The front presents the appearance of two balconies , one regular and one faux. 3. The structure is not in "Character" with the original development or with existing homes today. The entire neighborhood is dominated by single story , ranch style, 3 & 4 bedroom homes (Photograph 1). This two (2) story, 5 bedroom structure is not in character with the neighborhood in size, height, number of stories and bedrooms. Photograph 1 It should be noted that since Proposition M was passed in 1989, the numerous neighborhood home remodels have respected this single story ranch development. The neighborhood has been stable for the last 25 years and to approve this will set a dangerous precedent and destabilize the neighborhood. Even the partial 2 story Villa Rosa homes, where additions were added long before Proposition M passed, retain the overall footprint of a ranch home. 4. Violation of Privacy The large sliding window on the rear of the 2nd story allows direct viewing into adjacent homes and yards (including ours) thereby violating privacy. The code requirement for a second story rear sliding window and privacy are in direct conflict. a. Allowing the rear sliding window violates the privacy of neighbors, including ours (Photograph 2). b. Denying the rear sliding window would not meet code. You can not satisfy both. The suggestion to just plant trees is a temporary and incomplete solution. Trees come and go and ownership changes. Also, there is no effective control of vegetation under the 16 foot by-right height. Therefore, the only logical solution to this dichotomy is to eliminate the second story. 1-24 5. Destruction of views, streetscape & open air space The second story still blocks our view of the ocean, horizon and sky. It is also a direct affront to the open space feeling that is present today from our living room, dining room and patio (Photograph 2). Villa Rosa is a short cul-de-sac street approximately 30 feet wide. The addition of two story homes on this narrow street would eliminate the open character and setting of the street. Specifically, the addition of two story structures on the street would yield a closed, canyon like feel that is inconsistent with both the existing and original design of the neighborhood. This narrow street, being on a grade, is particularly susceptible to the canyon feel syndrome. The structure dominates the skyline and dwarfs adjacent homes (Photograph 3). Photograph 2 Photograph 3 1-25 6. Presents a cumulative view violation Common sense suggests that raising this massive structure up ~ 10 feet and moving it 150 closer to the Kohler residence (27925 Alvarez) would be a significant view issue. A quantitative engineering analysis that I and another engineer conducted supports that common sense observation. As seen below, it does indeed present a significant cumulative view impairment if the same addition at 6321 Villa Rosa was made at 6309 & 6315 Villa Rosa (Photograph 4). Photograph 4: Photo from May 27th Staff report with the quantitative analysis added. 7. Density and parking The neighborhood is comprised of 3 and 4 bedroom homes. The addition of 5 bedroom homes increases the population density. Also , the addition of a 5 bedroom structure on the street will also present a parking problems. The existing two (2) car garage will require the family to park vehicles on an already narrow, curved, crowded street. (Photograph 5). 1-26 Photograph 5 8. Property devaluation The addition of this massive non-conforming structure will devalue adjacent property values. This is a fact supported by Mr. Nash's testimony as a long time real estate appraiser. As 22 year residents, our home is our main investment. It is incomprehensible that an individual can come into the neighborhood and blissfully diminish a lifetime of work and savings. 9. Additional concerns As previous Commission testimony pointed out, there will be noise pollution associated with this two story structure. Specifically, noise propagation over natural boundaries which are mitigated with a single story ranch home but not with a two story structure. Finally, the structure furthers mansionization creep by setting a precedent, increasing the neighborhood home size average and reduces quality of life by increasing population density. Approving this variance will set a precedent, promote more non-conformity in the neighborhood and destabilize the neighborhood. Over 70 residents in the neighborhood have signed a petition supporting the Planning Committee's denial of this height variation request. Please support the neighborhood's concerns by upholding the denial of this height variation appeal. 1-27 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Leza, Sherry Erickson < SherryErickson@cox.net> Thursday, September 11, 2014 4:58 PM Leza Mikhail Lisa Garrett Statement from me Letter to Editor PV News.doc I wrote a letter to the editor which was printed in today's, September 11, 2014, Peninsula News. have attached for you and the Planning Commission. Just an FYI (privately): I am so unhappy about the "tone" of unfriendliness now in this neighborhood, that I am going to get my home ready to sell in the next year or so. I will choose to move out of Rancho Palos Verdes and I hope and pray that I will be able to find a nice neighborhood somewhere else, one that I thought this one was when I married my late husband, Kenneth Erickson and moved here. I have found a few friendly people here, (about 5 or 6) but that is it. I am sorry about your decision and hope it will be repealed . Sherry Erickson 6329 Villa Rosa Drive RPV 1 1-28 Sherry Erickson 6329 Villa Rosa Urive Rancho Palos V crdes, CA 90275-3263 310-541-5284 sherryerickson@cox.net Palos Verdes Peninsula News Letters to The Editor 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 9027 4 September 7, 2014 Re: "Proposed two-story spurs debate" Thursday, September 4, 2014 This property at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, RPV has a more human side to it than reported in this article. The house, in fact, was purchased and is owned by a family; a husband, wife and five children. They purchased this home for three reasons; to live in a nice, quiet, friendly cul-de-sac neighborhood, to live in a great school district (four of their five children now attend RPV schools), and to enlarge and remodel the house for their family of seven. They (and I) never thought they would be confronted by angry, hostile and unfriendly neighbors as they have these last several months. All these nice people want is a nice comfortable home to live in. The whole situation has gotten out of hand and now with lawyers involved has become worse. It has now become uncomfortable and not enjoyable to live on this street because of the animosity. Another two-story house is not going to ruin our neighborhood but will increase the value of all our properties. Unfortunately, those against will always be more vocal than those in favor. There are many of us in favor or who have no problem with this remodel, but have not signed a petition or expressed opinions. I live next door and have a two-story home on the other side and I am in favor of this remodel. I hope the RPV Planning Commission will see the right thing to do and approve this addition. Sherry Erickson 1-29 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jeanne Church <jschurch2@cox.net> Monday, December 01, 2014 9:05 PM cc Leza Mikhail 6321 Villa Rosa Having been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes for 52 years (when it was known as the Palos Verdes Peninsula) I can see no reason for prospective residents to buy a house in a nice one-story neighborhood and immediately try to make a mansion out of it. It is totally out of sync with the rest of the homes in the area and an eyesore for those of us in the area. If they can afford the house and the costs of renovating it, they could certainly find the "right" house for them in a neighborhood that already has the type of home they are looking for. Why would they want to persist in a neighborhood that would certainly not willingly accept them as neighbors. Perhaps they do not care since they probably plan to resell as soon as possible and leave the chaos they have created behind. Jeanne Church 6329 Manero Drive Rancho Palos Verdes 1 1-30 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: From : Mike & Mary Rutledge 6116 Monero Drive mrutledgel@aol.com Thursday, December 04, 2014 6:58 AM cc Leza Mikhail 6321 Villa Rosa Nonconformance Request RPV , CA 90275 (lived here since 1988) We applaud and are thankful for the RPV Planning Commission's denial of the variation requested by the owners of subject property. We have been reading about this situation for months and feel it is time to speak out. The first question that comes to mind is, "why did they buy in this neighborhood if they wanted a much larger house with a view?". It is exciting when you buy a new home and make improvements, renovations , and additions for you to enjoy in the years you reside there. But when those changes do not follow the existing law and completely ignore the concerns of your neighbors, then it is time for your representatives to step in, uphold the law and re-visit the original purpose of the neighborhood . It sets a dangerous , sickening precedent to allow one owner to go around a law that was put in place by a vote of the people. We're sure you are aware of the many reasons that people move to this city (i.e ., view, privacy, lower density , style similarity/consistency , stable property value--just to name a few); allowing the building of a large , second-story addition onto a house in a neighborhood full of one-story ranch-style homes robs many people of any number of those reasons . It is our hope that when this matter is brought before our RPV City Council on 16 December 2014, you will support and uphold the decision of our RPV Planning Commission. 1 1-31 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear City Council Members, Beatrice & Joe Marino <bgmarino@verizon.net> Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:55 AM cc Leza Mikhail Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa We are asking you to please uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the requested height variance at 6321 Villa Rosa. Please put an end to the controversial massive 2 story addition requested by the owners, Peachtree Family Trust. We have lived and raised our children in this beautiful neighborhood since 1980. We hate to see its intended original character of charming single story ranch homes destroyed; for if you allow this massive 2 story addition, it will be the beginning of what has been a beautiful area providing privacy and non obstructed views in a neighborhood of compatible homes on smaller lots. Unfortunately, I have seen the growing trend of homeowners buying smaller homes on small lots and building massive two story homes which invade privacy and obstruct views. Currently, my childhood neighborhood in the Westchester area of Los Angeles has gone from the charming neighborhood where I grew up (like ours is now) to an over-built area that has lost it's unity and character and where massive homes invade privacy. My aunt still lives in that neighborhood in a single story home but the massive 2nd story that was built next door a few years ago, has now robbed her of any privacy because the structure looks down on the side of the her house where the three bedrooms are located and on the back yard. The same has happened in Manhattan Beach where friends of ours bought a huge two story home themselves, 5 years ago, but have become increasingly unhappy. The next door neighbor's 2 story home looks down into their patio and backyard from the balcony because, as you probably know, areas of Manhattan Beach are hilly. Please support our current beautiful neighborhood design by denying the building of this proposed massive 2nd story construction which will immediately impact the privacy and views of the immediately neighbors, remembering that if approved you, our City Council, will open the way for further destruction of the charm, character, privacy and views we currently enjoy and are trying to preserve here in Rancho Palos Verdes. Very truly yours, Beatrice and Joe Marino 1 1-32 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Leza, Jim Kohler <jim_kohler@aol.com> Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:36 PM Leza Mikhail Fwd: Case ZON2014-00064 I mistyped your email address on the original copy of the following message. Jim jim_kohler@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Jim Kohler <jim_kohler@aol.com> To: CC <CC@rpv.com> Cc: lezam <lezam@rpc.com> Sent: Thu, Dec 4, 2014 3:25 pm 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 iim kohler@aol.com 1 1-33 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Ms . Liza Mikhail, Akemichi Yamada <akemichi@verizon.net> Friday, December 05, 2014 1:12 PM Leza Mikhail Comments on Case #ZON2014-00064 Impacts of Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa_2014_12_0S_AY _c.pdf I am enclosing 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 1-34 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, akemichi((i)verizon.net Date: December 5, 2014 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. The proposed two-story remodel will not be compatible with the neighborhood because it degrades the street scape, blocks views and infringes on privacy. I like to see a single-story design that would be more compatible with the neighborhood. As much as 2,700 sq-ft (excluding garage), which is twice as much as the current structure, can be obtained with a single-story design. Therefore the two-story design can be avoided. (1) Excessive height, incompatible with neighborhood As shown in Photo 1 below, the proposed two-story remodel appears more like a two-and-a-half-story high on the sloped Villa Rosa street. The proposed two-story structure is not compatible with the neighborhood that consists mostly of one-story houses where the average square footage is around 1,900 sq-ft. The two-story design will disturb the rhyme of the streetscape of the narrow Villa Rosa Street (about 28ft from curb to curb). The two-story design will result in a substantial loss of "air and light" for many neighbors. If this proposed two-story remodel becomes a precedent for the future development in this neighborhood, developers will build more two-story structures. The propagation of two-story houses will change the character of the neighborhood forever, depriving open "air and light" that is the hallmark of Rancho Palos Verdes. Before the passage of Measure M, the pop-up over the garage and the two-story house were built on Villa Rosa resulting in detrimental effect on the streetscape of Villa Rosa, blocking ocean views, and infringing on privacy of neighbors. The same mistake should not be allowed to occur again. (2) Infringement of Privacy The proposed two-story remodel is abutting our property at 6320 Rio Linda Drive. As shown in Photo 2 below, there are three proposed windows (48"x48'', 48"x24", and 36"x24") having direct view into our property (the back yard, sun room, dining room, master bed room and master bath room). We will be subjected to intrusive visual observation. We are retired, and are spending tremendous amount of time in Page 1of4 1-35 our sun room and back yard. We like to preserve our privacy that we have enjoyed last 21 years. Please note that planting trees along the property border is not an effective means to mitigate privacy infringement because it takes a long time to grow tall trees and trees are too porous. (3) Taking away precious views from neighbors Many of us enjoy the setting sun hovering over the horizon. The height above 16 feet will take away views being enjoyed by neighbors. If two-story structures of this type propagate in the neighborhood, more precious views will be taken away and the neighborhood character will be changed forever. (4) Creating parking problems on Villa Rosa Villa Rosa is a narrow dead-end street (only 28 feet from curb to curb) and already has parking problems. People have difficulties finding adequate spaces for placing trash bins on a collection day. An emergency vehicle can hardly maneuver on the street. If larger homes are built, the street will be filled with additional parked cars creating serious problems. Photo 1, Massive 2-story remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Page 2of4 1-36 Photo 2, View from 6320 Rio Linda Drive Direct view from 3 windows: 48"x48", 36"x24" & 48"x24" Infringing on our privacy in backyard Photo taken at approx. 45 feet from the windows Locations and sizes of windows shown are approximate. (5) Not complying with guidelines set by RPV I believe that the proposed remodel does not adhere to key guidelines described in the "Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook" (NCH) and the "Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits" (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, B.1). B) The bulk and mass of the new residence or an addition to an existing residence should be similar to neighboring structures, not overwhelming or disproportionate in size. A design that is out of character with the neighborhood is strongly discouraged (NCH page 28). C) The proposed structure should be compatible with immediate neighborhood character. "Neighborhood character" is defined to consider the existing characteristics of an area, including: Page 3of4 1-37 (a) Scale of 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 structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials (PHY page 15). D) The structure should enhance the rhyme of the streetscape (NCH page 27) E) The height of a structure that is above 16 feet in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences (PHY page 15) F) The height of a structure should be carefully designed to respect views from the viewing area of neighboring properties (NCH page 21 B.5, PHY page 13). Page 4of4 1-38 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Marian Sarkozy <masarkozy@hotmail.com> Saturday, December 06, 2014 12:15 PM Leza Mikhail FW: 6321 Villa Rosa Please do not grant a permit to the Peachtree Family Trust regarding their request of "mansionizing" the property at 6321 Villa Rosa. The proposed renovations would disrupt the character of the neighborhood. You have already decided to deny the variances which would block views, invade privacy and are incompatible with the area. Please uphold your decision. Thank you for your time. Marian Sarkozy Zoltan Sarkozy 6224 Monero Dr. 1 1-39 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dear Ms. Leza Mikhail, Yoshiko <yoshikorpvca@verizon.net> Friday, December 05, 2014 2:35 PM Leza Mikhail cc Submission of comments on Case #ZON2014-00064 Letter to CC on 6321 Villa Rosa_2014_12_05_ YO_c.pdf I would like to submit my comments on Case #ZON2014-00064 on 6321 Villa Rosa. I would like to request the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Please include my comments in the staff report. Sincerely, Yoshiko Ohno 6320 Rio Linda Dr. 310-707-6743 1 1-40 To: City Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Cc.: Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: Yoshiko Ohno, 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-707-6743 Date: December 5, 2014 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, This is to 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. The proposed two-story design does not blend well with the neighborhood that consists mostly of single-story houses. It infringes on privacy of neighbors, blocks views, degrades the streetscape, and changes the character of the neighborhood. An alternative single-story design should be encouraged. This type of two-story structure should be located in other parts of Rancho Palos Verdes where it is appropriate. It may be inevitable that this neighborhood will transform into a mixture of older original houses and newer remodeled houses. However, it is important that newer remodeled houses blend well with older original houses and the streetscape is enhanced. Any newer remodeled house should not infringe on privacy of neighbors or block views. We are concerned that this particular two-story remodel will set a precedent for the future development in this neighborhood that was initially built giving considerations to maintaining privacy of residents and providing ocean views. If the proposed two-story remodel is allowed, developers such as Peachtree Family Trust will take the opportunity to build more two-story structures. The propagation of two-story houses will have the devastating impacts on the neighborhood as described below. Specific examples are given for infringement of privacy, degrading streetscape, and blocking the ocean view. (1) Infringing on privacy of neighbors Our property abuts the proposed two-story remodel. The view from our property is shown in photo 1. There will be direct views into our backyard and living quarters from three windows on the proposed second floor. We will be subjected to intrusive visual observation. If two-story houses of this type propagate in this neighborhood, many more residents will be subject to intrusive visual observation. This is one of many reasons why people object to having two-story houses in this neighborhood. Page 1of5 1-41 (2) Degrading the streetscape of narrow Villa Rosa As shown in Photo 2 below, the proposed two-story remodel appears more like a two-and-a-half-story high structure on the sloped narrow Villa Rosa, standing like a canyon wall. The two-story design will disturb the rhyme of the streetscape of the narrow Villa Rosa Street (about 28 feet from curb to curb). If two-story houses of this type propagate, it will certainly change the character of the neighborhood by taking away the feel of open "air and light". The parking situation on the narrow Villa Rosa will be further aggravated by addition of more cars, and it will make more difficult for emergency vehicles to maneuver on Villa Rosa. (3) Serious impact on Rio Linda if two-story structures propagate The current streetscape of Rio Linda is shown in Photo 3. The ocean is visible above single-story houses. If two-story houses propagate also on Rio Linda, the ocean view will be lost, and the streetscape will be drastically changed. The character of the neighborhood will be changed by depriving open "air and light" that is the hallmark of Rancho Palos Verdes. (4) Blocking precious ocean view Previously, a two-story house was approved on Villa Rosa before Measure M was passed. It infringes on privacy of neighbors and blocks ocean views. Measure M is trying to prevent building intrusive two-story houses of this type. An example of how two story-house blocks the ocean view can be demonstrated by Photos 4 and 5 below . Photo 4 shows the ocean view toward Northwest from our property. Photo 5 shows how the two-story house on Villa Rosa is blocking our ocean view toward Southwest. The two-story house has drastically reduced the angle of the ocean view from our house. If two-story houses propagate in this neighborhood, this tragic result will be repeated over and over. The height of any remodel should be kept within the 16-feet by-right height in this neighborhood. Page 2of5 1-42 Photo 1, View of proposed remodel seen from 6320 Rio Linda Drive Direct view from 3 windows: 48"x48", 36"x24" & 48"x24" Infringing on our privacy in backyard Photo taken at approx. 45 feet from the windows Locations and sizes of windows shown are approximate. Page 3of5 1-43 Photo 2, Massive proposed two-story remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Photo 3, the street view of Rio Linda Page 4of5 1-44 Photo 4, Ocean view toward Northwest from our property Photo 5, View toward Southwest from our property This shows how the ocean view toward Southwest is blocked by the two-story house (that was a roved before the assa e of Measure M) Page 5of5 1-45 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Donald Brogdon <donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com> Monday, December 08, 2014 2:30 PM cc Leza Mikhail Our comments on Case #ZON2014-00064 Brogdon Presentation_July 8_Rev3.pptx To: City Council, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Cc.: Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: Betty 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. Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Dear Honorable Members of City Council, I realize the pictures on our report are long but it is the best way for my husband Donald and me to tell our story. This is our one and only chance to save our home. We purchased our home because of our backyard and the peace and tranquility we enjoy on a daily basis. Please keep the proposed remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive to only one story. Now Donald and I are retired, and are spending tremendous amounts of time in our back yard because of the peace and tranquility we enjoy. Because we are retired, it is very critical for us to be able to enjoy the privacy in our living quarters. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review our report and considering our situation. Your assistance and considerations are greatly appreciated . Sincerely, Betty and Donald Brogdon 1 1-46 Infringement of Our Privacy, 6328 Rio Linda Dr. • Negative impacts on compatibilities, streetscape, ocean view, privacy, etc. • Proposed windows and balconies on the second floor could allow a direct view into the living quarters of our home Backyard, master bedroom, master bathroom, living room and dining room • Our home will be sandwiched between two massive structures. (We will be Jiving in a fish bowl.) • Current trees and hedges are not a reliable means for providing adequate privacy year around Too massive! Window Window 1 - 4 7 Additional Infringement • Once the 2-story structure is built, modifications can be made any time: -The large {12'x7') walk-in closet can be converted into a sitting room with ocean view by installing windows and balconies. They will be looking over our property. - A balcony less than 80sqft can be added without a compatibility analysis according to Municipal Code 17.02.030. 1 - 4 8 We do not have privacy from our neighbor located on the other side of our home {6343 Villa Rosa Dr.) 1 - 4 9 We are losing all of our privacy in the southeast direction. We have already lost our privacy in the southwest direction, and if the 2 story house gets approved, it is likely someone will remodel the south-side house as a two story. "We do not want to be living in a fish bowl" surrounded on three sides by "Mansionazations". Balcony Window Window Potential third 2-story house at the South side aggravates the situation 1 - 5 0 Living in a Fish Bowl • No second Story. If the proposed two story structure at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive (Southeast corner of our home) is built we are totally open and exposed. • No more privacy in our backyard and living quarters. We will lose the home we fell in love with and purchased. We will never get it back. • We are already encumbered by the house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive (Southwest corner). Now if the proposed two story structure at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive is built we will have obstruction to our home from both the Southeast and Southwest directions. We will be living in a "fish bowl". • Our home that we love will be changed and gone forever. 1 - 5 1 Date: December 8, 2014 To: City Council cc: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Kevin Hamilton 6309 Villa Rosa Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Leza Mikhail Planning Department RECEIVED DEC 0 8 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Petition on the height variation at 6321 Villa Rosa Please find the attached petition with over 70 residents signatures requesting the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny the height variation request at 6321 Villa Rosa. 1-52 PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF THE HEIGHT VARIATION AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE The undersigned request that the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application by Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY ADDRESS I YEARS I CONTACT I SIGNATURE I DATE NAME OWNED INFORMATION (Phone or Email /.< e v 1 M /lt:ivm1 It oN I C3o 'i v, //c.-R.o.sc;/ I 2.2 IK<vu1@ c ~:Jerv•ce5,«,,,._ I ~ J# I I(/ -'J. -/I/ 1f£wlll1-1r (AtttAPA 1632.D {fto L,1)..J.DA I .:i.. I l/Ji<tJ..i'dlCHC@VERIY:oN;Nb7 I d . -"!:/~w-L_,__ I JtJ-S--/t/ ?2~ ~ ?> L111A~ {')... d1Hta IJ., hf~ a cl D n c 4 Jioc .CJ>l M~-I /o-~-I 07 "' b3o3 g(o L'Klola.. '3 J0-~eSl1ia ~ t ~ v£-{.A,'\.v-I llQj ~ /"\ I w1r-1A;rt; 6'31S f2<Vl~ IA1~ I ~ I luu/pePcA f3/I> ® I Ytf h11u , [,,P' ::f P ~ l10/S/)u1 l 6¢ S-¢ I j Joe11;,,(.; . I ts5 12 f f2 l .t'B~FG @/ 1 ~· I i;7i*- '11 1 - 5 3 PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF THE HEIGHT VARIATION AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE The undersigned request that the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application by Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY ADDRESS I YEARS NAME OWNED bJ Jf rr 0 c_r v r;t;-I :<_ {)((\ 'lo>tu/{o YamaltA-l 6320 ?io )4µ'Vl7 I 21 CONTACT INFORMATION hone or Email) ?10.-<j77-7/f ( I 310-s-t;r; -¥12r- ._s--z_ 1 310 377--L/-{Cf 3( IVcR-6 I $:A_ l31b ~7/,_ /77~ b ?Z b /Y)rotaM I CJ 3 I tJ (? l/t 7 7 I?) 63[)4~~. I CJ "31tJ{51/ -7713 . ,. ,...,.,,,,,,_ \)-6\/\ \-t--\t ,V) ~) \ <1 lvlo'V}c YO ·ov -I > 10 ~ r 1-~yr.sr lQ~lq V\\uvUA-~ Or. I \~ (~ L\ ln r1 1 vw-l. Yq · C Jo) )10 n r;;rc )),., 10 J10 -'5~'1---Z8YS- Mern (;oL--o 1f\ib ~ 'LG0 M~eVD 0fl. \~ Io ~-i 0r2-1}1~1 SIGNATURE DATE - !JJ/7iv !o/7 /f4 lo/~tt l 0 l8lr ~ 1 - 5 4 PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF THE HEIGHT VARIATION AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE The undersigned request that the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application by Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY ADDRESS I YEARS NAME OWNED 2 o J fw-9n--ko-zy I (; zz lf /l1 ,yVt;-X t:, j)I( I 3 G CONTACT INFORMATION Phone or Email 310,'lfJ, 717 f SIGNATURE DATE lo -~-ly Tue:b~aflE MtLL &2rz..l MDAJC>e.o bf(, J.j{J -Std ~51/(-/l./62-~~ /() -g-/f( h.ltt,n1tr'W1-0 J2r; 32k (310 Y~l7~-l?jF ~/i.t f<J_,?-f 5u.sll. 0'\)1:\\1\JcX I ~101 rv\,~ ID 31 0 377 -4 0 "3> g ~0 ' /0-8-1y ~ ft--e is J e-b-e. VLITl\-e-rv ~. I 4 D [3Jo)P!-1-</lf79 l~0"-'~~1 t 0 --<f-·/· ~b M\1 34 S/lHU[;l /<fZAl>S I 6l 09' t1DAJ(~D () 5f ~fo) Sl/lf~ ~ rJ-5 10-)-l4- u:;t4C" '081111 cA!Ld:.A I bf-(EAK..~ l (i(/~)&60-5/)0 /0--t/-f ~€,VJ~ 5Vlllf1'h V I I le.ct:Kol &?02-1/ 4 !2.aftt /, s 0'Y<J 13( 0 ~kd 3.b( z 5a.~ Or-e~k G? 6 '6 R,6 L~\AJ ()')I )6 1'1o-r;U{ ,q-z~ ~ ~ \ f.A kAJAl\T,A I b31:>1 t~o L~JA. ~ b ~I b-5-44-1 '1 b~ D friV / D fD~oJb~ G ~ D3 O\.i o L;(\J, 'lo 1\ ~_,7>17--'6°'1~ 3/-, 1 - 5 5 ~ PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF THE HEIGHT VARIATION AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE The undersigned request that the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application by Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY ADDRESS I YEARS NAME OWNED CONTACT INFORMATION Phone or Email 6fM1"'-~ l~°l fioL~ 2o I (1 tc) S-tyf-)-J-~~ L4J~tlitb 5tlf ltil/f A1~ JJ~dt-11' ff; J'.1it> )Jfl" fNJ I , " ,et'/~ t ii t, L1 m f I{) hLM?? )V\ p~~f£1 2- 3 8' I 31 0 -SI I -7$75 ~ 2tJ 1 J.Jt1 h·tA-tJ J:>rl J 3 6!//6 ;f)wi«o ;)r I I 3 4fq m~ I tf~ 2 ~\'0 ~\\\\~ "fj/lflf ,1 310 9 3/tJ, S-tl-i. t,~3f {s l 0 ) 3 2-C?--3" / i- 6 JD )51-// -oBB 7 v~) ~ 1J-' & 1 11 SIGNATURE DATE 1o}r(! fl- IV. /2.. /f '3e/IZ2o ff b..., Ii:) (Y1dYl~1> j}r I ID "'!:,ID / / i ·7 84 L I "'"f7 l{f' __.--/I 10/1i/1'7 G~~1 ~·bl,~ I 7 (J>1t1)&i..i1 _?f>'£0 I G ~j /Q/12/1 4/1 1 - 5 6 PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF THE REMODEL AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE The undersigned request that the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application by Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY ADDRESS I YEARS NAME OWNED CONTACT INFORMATION Phone or Email \J \~c.~~t L, u. ? 1.. o -t'+if--J z:i. b 63ZcJ V\ll°'" Ros°'-J>r./ Z.2. I v~~c.~<6'!L<:,8'@~Wlo.:d.~ L,· vL / S2 o VI {et_ l<!J~V;rf 2 2 MCA.~~1e )\e rl41i~I '1-S't; z \J\l 'q Ro7CA '"Pr. I ) 5 ~-r;\i0 ~ I Lob'+4 Uill°'-~ \l.y I (o ~ ~ I C:,31.{'( (/.~(&. ~osa. Jr.. 310 -S"(t-bb '2-la tf) 1tll!3 8£n1 Cot?..flll?>o I & 3o9 l/il.-£..4 R.os1t-'PiL. ~ 13 10 -sroo-L/D3 ·~~ ~~ I (p33~ V?{(C( ~ \ {p ~ i o-~t.µ+-(~i3 q3 1/li~Skl I f3f) tliild. /l..01~ 7 c,u.sHEH@, ]e<twJe.i/.Cdht f_,/y 5AeA I &~/)--//,j!PL/4Jf\ 7 U fv@t)fifec ·(fi~ ,JttclcGLUs I 0;3 ~ tr1 \/0 (/2-.lAM 2.f g--3 7JS" L; I 6 -v C/( /Nl<Jpr;'(J l~r-I ('J~ ~1tJ£ &rtttrJJ. W"-1 j evJw_p._ 4-o I b}, 'f 1 Mm.!bn 12-t. I .c: I )!', SIGNATURE DATE l o(i,o(t'f lc:>/~e.//i- t<J{2.0/1 t<J/'2AJ11 tV¥f'f1 1(5f1'f ;z/2.J/!'f T ~ t z,/ ~!cf ' ~· h i 74 ~ 1 ~/7 /ref S/7 1 - 5 7 PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF THE REMODEL AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE The undersigned request that the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the height variation application by Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PROPERTY OWNER NAME d\ {Y\ + ~\J0(:J t\ c K'.1 ~~ 1l /,J.' I) f3e-* G 0 o ~l.v V•~ b_~ c..~ '-'~-'~ L,·~ ryvi , >--, I . t, lhc,.,l)s. D 'lfo q () ~ PROPERTY ADDRESS I YEARS OWNED ~'A~~ lJQ ~e,> R 'f1 U ·} ~ ~ Cf O 111<3J6~ I ~ 1 >'? c"(t ~ 7 1; 3 trrv "_s-"< "1--fJ r , ' 1 'l "J 'f). ~ pt /VO.v-<?'J ~1/- rl'-.:Y I K ;p lr , Cf1 D ~ '\, ~ 111 1 6 [3°:! yY\~nS J_.,-1 3 Z71I9 /If Vtt~ ~LY. I J 1 {; 3o7 R,/a it~I 3 f +- ,;./'731 Al.vJll-l.6-z.. bff-- 7 It }_J,,., ... Jo /'-" I ;f-1~30 klvCtr"eZ.. 'ffr\fj, CONTACT INFORMATION Se ~ \v o <e., u el'-) . , I tC<-t/\ rQ_JL~ ~~~ I /) AJ I ~Gy .. f<a.J ~1 vUb-ef' ne/- r • TJ..b WJa s -D ha9an@- . '/,c o 1r1 SIGNATURE DATE 'Ca-r~ 1-d -4:1 S-1 C( /t:f -)-_,/r 1'1.-7-/y --., ~ I),-::// ~ '-7- '/7 1 - 5 8 PETITION JN SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF THE HEIGHT VARIATION AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE The undersigned request that the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council uphold the Planntng Commission's denial of the height variation application by Peachtree FamHy Trust at 6321 VHla Rosa, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS YEARS CONTACT SIGNATURE DATE NAME OWNED INFORMATION (Phone or Email) A1;vt ... ,,, f Ws.tA l ~IY 12.~ ~ Li 11\tl.IA q til.'/·~~.cv~ M -I 2../ i..f /J'f . - Ca,.('/ ~hn.;tt< 0 ~ e 7--~ ie ~e_ ;fJ,,. 5 r-CJµ/.t+t.._et,,,,~~·1 ·ll-fi-tddd l 1 /tk 'I:)!V Qoc:6 ~3 /~ ;r, ci'."_.-'b\_ 0 3> ~~~~ ·~~ .c<.... ~ O/LA-I'?.____/>;. -I ~7 \.. 1 - 5 9 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Ms. Mikhail, The Glenn Family <samuel.glenn2@verizon.net> Monday, December 08, 2014 10:17 PM Leza Mikhail; Carolglenn; sb.glenn@verizon.net Glenn's 12-7-2014 response: Case N. ZON2014-00064 Ms Leza Mikhail response letter resubmitted plans Case ZON2014-00064 12-7-14 Rev A.doc Attached is our response to the revised inputs to Case No. ZON2014-00064 of the the proposed addition at 6321 Villa Rosa. Please see the attached signed letter for consideration in the ongoing review and evaluation of the compatibility of the project. We look forward to the Council Meeting scheduled for December 16, 2014 and will provide our verbal inputs to the revised proposal as well. 19 year residents of RPV, Sam and Carol Glenn PS: Please forgive the technical difficulties of a scanned document pasted into a Word document. The computer just didn't want to play nice this evening. 1 1-60 .. Ms Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner Planning Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palo s Verdes, CA 90275 December 7, 2014 Subject: Height Variation, Grading Pem1it & Site Plan Review (Case N. ZON2014- 00064) Dear Ms. Mikhail, As the City Council takes up the review of this Case and the history of the Planning meetings with public input, I feel the staff has done a disservice to the Peachtree Family Trust by not rejecting out right the original proposal. The staff appears to believe that they can modify the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook dated May 6, 2003 . The multiple meetings that strung out the trust implied that the Planning Commission bas the ability to ignore the Compatibility Handbook instead of enforcing the Handbook. The neighborhood around the proposed addition was originally designed as single story residences. This differs from other neighborhoods in Rancho Palos Verdes that included single and two story homes in the original neighborhood design. The current two story additions in the neighborhood were built before the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook dated May 6, 2003 was approved. The planning commission acknowledged in public meetings that some of the "eyesores" would not have meet the requirements of the Handbook. The proposed project creates a huge structure that's bulk and mass overwhelms most of the local homes except the eyesores that were built before the Handbook was implemented. The staffs analysis based on nearest homes uses homes as you drive down the street away from the residence instead of including nearer residences to the east of the project (Villa Rosa residences) and north east (Rio Linda properties that backyards back up to Villa Rosa properties) that a circle around the property would create. Including these homes further reduces the average size of the home and thus increases how the bulk and mass is disproportionate to the existing neighborhood. The proposed project removes ocean views from existing residences. The stafPs analysis "felt" these views were insignificant. Further, the staff has minimalized the cumulative impact to view reduction by not taking into account if you add 2 story additions to all the houses in the neighborhood . Once the first of addition is approved, developers and real estate speculators will convert this single story neighborhood into another area of MacMansions. A decision to allow the project will set precedence that any house in this neighborhood of single story houses will be approved for a second story. Approval of this project will dramatically change the Neighborhood Compatibility with the blessings of City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes. In the near future, the neighborhood will not reflect the single story environment what many of us moved into this neighborhood for. We chose this neighborhood 19 years ago for the single story houses with open vertical space. Prior to the move, we lived in the dense packed limited privacy beach communities with rows of maximum sized houses. 1-61 Approval of the proposed project leaves the existing residents with a simple choice of move out of the area or joining the McMansion build up expansion precedence. Relocation out of this area is a sad thought for long term residents who have raised a family, supported the local community and have looked forward to retirement in this wonderful neighborhood. We hope you will consider the families that continue to demonstrate living compatibly with our neighbors, enjoying the rural/semi-rural character of our co17Lu~ty as established when our city was founded as you make your ruling. ~~ GL..__- Sam Glenn and Carol Glenn. \\J, ('\-----. ~r:i>-kAr~ 1-62 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Ms. Mikhail, Raymond Nuber <raymond.nuber@cox.net> Tuesday, December 09, 2014 12:03 AM Leza Mikhail raymond.nuber@cox.net Case #ZON2014-00064): In support of the Planning Commission's Decision denying a Height Variation, Grading Permit, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Ray Nuber concerns re 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Height Variation request 8 December 2014 .docx Attached and below please find my letter in support of the Planning Commission's Decision denying a Height Variation, Grading Permit, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive (Case #ZON2014-00064). Please include this letter in the report for the members of the City Council. Thank, Ray Nuber Raymond M Nuber 27919 Alvarez Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 8 December 2014 Ms. Mikhail Associate Planner, Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 lezarn@rpv.com RE: Case #ZON2014-00064 Dear Ms. Mikhail: I am writing in support of the Planning Commission's Decision denying a Height Variation, Grading Permit, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive (Case #ZON2014-00064). The Appellant's requests do not honor our city's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits. 1 1-63 In summary, the proposed remodel of this house greatly exceeds our neighborhood's scale, bulk, mass, and square footage, exceed the 16 foot "by-right" height, infringe on neighbor privacy, and breaks the rhythm of the street scape. In particular, the Appellant requests the City approve plans that would put the house's eves and the rest of the roof higher than the 16 foot "by right" height. Therefore, my recommendation continues to be that the city deny this application. It's important to note that this applicant never proposed a design that, as suggested multiple times by the Planning Commission, either expands only as a single story, as a split-level, or by excavating. Such designs could remain under the 16 foot "by right" height. The fact the applicant didn't offer such a compromise after multiple attempts with the Planning Commission indicates the objective is a two-story addition and not simply a larger house. This directly challenges our neighborhood's character. Note that no multi-story remodels have been permitted in our neighborhood (defined by upper Manero, Alvarez, Centuria, Rio Linda, and Villa Rosa) since Measure M was passed; every multistory home currently on any of our streets was approved before Measure M was passed. In addition, more than 60 signatures have been collected thus far on petitions that object to building this proposed 2nd story design in our neighborhood and supports the Planning Commission's denial of this application. Clearly, as communicated to the Planning Commission both via letters as well as speeches, our neighborhood understands the bad precedent that would be set if the City Council were to approve this proposed 2nd story remodel. I see this as a cornerstone characteristic of what defines Neighborhood Compatibility for our neighborhood, which of course is one of the key tenants that motivated for our city's citizens to pass Measure M. Finally, keeping remodels in our neighborhood below the 16 foot "by right" height reasonably constrains both individual as well as cumulative view impairment, another of the key tenets of Measure M. I note a side benefit of constraining the height would be to virtually eliminate the privacy and streetscape issues. I continue to urge our city leadership to respect our city's Measure M Ordinance and fight McMansionization. If instead the City Council were to reverse the denial of its own Planning Commission and approve this application, the City Council would effectively be allowing the home equity value of me and my neighbors to be transferred to the Appellant as the remodeled house would rob us of our ocean views and give these to the Appellant. I do realize a Staff Report finds the Appellant's plans don't significantly impact views. However, as an engineering myself, I too can differentiate between technicalities and practicalities. I appreciate the city's process for adjudicating requests for height variation calls for a Staff analysis and report, and subsequent review by the Planning Commission, all with the goal of providing quantitative and objective conclusions. With all that having resulted in a Planning Commission denial, and in consideration ofthe facts presented by myself and my neighbors during each of Planning Commission's public hearings, I view the Staff's conclusions regarding view impact as mere technicalities . The practical impact on the direct views of my neighbors and the potential cumulative view impact on my own property's value are obvious examples of the sort of overbuilding that our city's passage of Measure M was intended to prevent. Does the City Council really want to entertain the idea that the Appellant's remodel plans and the potential effect on our neighborhood are a reasonable compromise in the spirit of Measure M? 2 1-64 I look forward to the opportunity to publically summarize my opposition verbally during the 16 December City Council Meeting. Sincerely, Raymond M Nuber 3 1-65 Raymond M Nuber 27919 Alvarez Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 8 December 2014 Ms. Mikhail Associate Planner, Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 lezam@rpv.com RE: Case #ZON2014-00064 Dear Ms. Mikhail: I am writing in support of the Planning Commission's Decision denying a Height Variation, Grading Permit, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive (Case #ZON2014-00064). The Appellant's requests do not honor our city's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits. In summary, the proposed remodel of this house greatly exceeds our neighborhood's scale, bulk, mass, and square footage, exceed the 16 foot "by-right" height, infringe on neighbor privacy, and breaks the rhythm of the street scape. In particular, the Appellant requests the City approve plans that would put the house's eves and the rest of the roof higher than the 16 foot "by right" height. Therefore, my recommendation continues to be that the city deny this application. It's important to note that this applicant never proposed a design that, as suggested multiple times by the Planning Commission, either expands only as a single story, as a split-level, or by excavating. Such designs could remain under the 16 foot "by right" height. The fact the applicant didn't offer such a compromise after multiple attempts with the Planning Commission indicates the objective is a two-story addition and not simply a larger house. This directly challenges our neighborhood's character. Note that no multi-story remodels have been permitted in our neighborhood (defined by upper Manero, Alvarez, Centuria, Rio Linda, and Villa Rosa) since Measure M was passed; every multistory home currently on any of our streets was approved before Measure M was passed. In addition, more than 60 signatures have been collected thus far on petitions that object to building this proposed 2nd story design in our neighborhood and supports the Planning 1-66 Ms. Mikhail [Date] Page 2 Commission's denial of this application. Clearly, as communicated to the Planning Commission both via letters as well as speeches, our neighborhood understands the bad precedent that would be set if the City Council were to approve this proposed 2nd story remodel. I see this as a cornerstone characteristic of what defines Neighborhood Compatibility for our neighborhood, which of course is one of the key tenants that motivated for our city's citizens to pass Measure M. Finally, keeping remodels in our neighborhood below the 16 foot "by right" height reasonably constrains both individual as well as cumulative view impairment, another of the key tenets of Measure M. I note a side benefit of constraining the height would be to virtually eliminate the privacy and streetscape issues. I continue to urge our city leadership to respect our city's Measure M Ordinance and fight McMansionization . If instead the City Council were to reverse the denial of its own Planning Commission and approve this application, the City Council would effectively be allowing the home equity value of me and my neighbors to be transferred to the Appellant as the remodeled house would rob us of our ocean views and give these to the Appellant. I do realize a Staff Report finds the Appellant's plans don't significantly impact views. However, as an engineering myself, I too can differentiate between technicalities and practicalities. I appreciate the city's process for adjudicating requests for height variation calls for a Staff analysis and report, and subsequent review by the Planning Commission, all with the goal of providing quantitative and objective conclusions. With all that having resulted in a Planning Commission denial, and in consideration of the facts presented by myself and my neighbors during each of Planning Commission's public hearings, I view the Staffs conclusions regarding view impact as mere technicalities. The practical impact on the direct views of my neighbors and the potential cumulative view impact on my own property's value are obvious examples of the sort of overbuilding that our city's passage of Measure M was intended to prevent. Does the City Council really want to entertain the idea that the Appellant's remodel plans and the potential effect on our neighborhood are a reasonable compromise in the spirit of Measure M? I look forward to the opportunity to publically summarize my opposition verbally during the 16 December City Council Meeting. Sincerely, Raymond M Nuber 1-67 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Ms. Mikhail, Andy Hsu <a.y.h@me.com> Tuesday, December 09, 2014 11:54 PM Leza Mikhail Support for Planning Commission's denial of plans for 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. My wife and I are the owners and residents of 6314 Rio Linda Dr. We are writing to express our support for the Planning Commission's decision to deny a height variation, grading permit, and site plan review for 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. The current proposal for the property continues to pose problems for the neighborhood in several ways: 1. It compromises the privacy of nearby residents because of its height and views into nearby properties. 2. Its size and square footage dwarfs its neighboring homes. 3. It does not match the scale of the surrounding residences and breaks the rhythm of the streetscape. While there are a small number of two story homes in the neighborhood, it is important to note that these were all approved prior to Measure M. The revisions made to the original proposal still does not adequately address these problems. We strongly feel that the proposed house would contradict the guidelines described in the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and the rules set by Measure M. We therefore support the Planning Commission's decision to deny approval of the proposed remodeling plan for 6321 Villa Rosa and urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Thank you, Andrew Hsu and Gayley Louie 1 1-68 P.C. Resolution No. 2014-24 (Denial) Attachments 1-1 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 Attachments 1-2 the garage, an increase in the rear yard setback from 19'-3" to 33'-8", elimination of balconies along the rear fac;ade of the second story addition, clerestory windows and one (1) standard window along the rear fa9ade 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, 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; 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 Attachments 1-3 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 th is 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 Plann ing 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 gth day of September 2014, by the following vote : A YES: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, and James NOES: Commissioner Cruikshank and Vice Chairman Nelson RECUSALS: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tomblin and Chairman Leon Joel Com Seer P.C . Resolution No. 2014-24 Page 3 of 3 Attachments 1-4 P.C. Minutes (September 9, 2014 P.C. Meeting) Attachments 1-5 None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Height Variation, Grading & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00064): 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Director Rojas explained that the public hearing for this item was closed, a decision was made, and the Resolution memorializing that decision is now before the Commission. He noted he has several speaker slips for the item, and explained that the item will be pulled from the Consent Calendar in order to hear the speaker. He noted that discussion should be limited to whether or not the Resolution reflects the Commission's decision, as any other discussion would require a new public hearing be noticed. He also noted that the project deadline is September 18th, so the Commission really doesn't have the option to renotice a future public hearing if it wishes to do so. Sam Hassan (applicant) distributed a letter to the Commissioners. Kevin Hamilton, Donald Grogdon, and Vincent Liu thanked the Commission for the time they put into hearing this application. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Vice Chairman Nelson stated he had supported this project from the beginning, and therefore could not support this Resolution He noted that at the last meeting the Commission had voted that there would be a letter to the City Council requesting that any appeal fees be waived. He did not see anything in the Resolution relating to that, and would like to see that in the Resolution. Director Rojas stated that it had been staff's intention to include the Commission's request for a fee waiver in the staff report to the City Council. However, it would not be a problem to add it to the Resolution. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to amend the motion to add a section to the Resolution reflecting the Commission's request that the City Council waive the appeal fee if this project is appealed, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The Consent Calendar was approved and PC Resolution 2014-24, as amended, was adopted, (3-2) with Commissioners Cruikshank and Nelson dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. LCP Amendment (ZON2014-00329) Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2014 Page 2 Attachments 1-6 P .C. Staff Report {September 9, 2014 P.C. Meeting) • Late Correspondence from September 9, 2014 P.C. Mtg . Attachments 1-7 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: RANCHO PALOS VERDES CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS 'O~WTHE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS -COMMUNI T Y DE OPMENT DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. 2014-00064); PROJECT ADDRESS -6321 VILLA ROSA (LANDOWNER -PEACHT~AMIL Y TRUST) Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner c RECOMMENDATION Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_, thereby denying, without prejudice , the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review applications for a new two-story residence at the property located at 6321 Villa Rosa (Case No . ZON2014-00064). DISCUSSION On August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission considered the merits of a revised project for a new second-story addition to the property located at 6321 Villa Rosa. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the project's potential impacts as they relate to privacy, cumulative view impairment, and neighborhood compatibility. 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 to deny the project, without prejudice, passed on a 6-1 vote, with Commissioner Nelson dissenting. During the Planning Commission's discussions on the merits of the revised project, which one Commissioner commented on continued privacy impacts that he felt could be mitigated, the majority of the Planning Commission opined that the revised project continued to not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because the revised project continued to create a bulk and mass impact to the neighborhood. 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 overall scale of the residence would alter the character of the immediate neighborhood at a size of 3,841 square feet (garage included). Based on these concerns expressed by the majority of the Commission during its deliberations , Staff prepared the attached Draft Resolution to deny, without prejudice, the project based solely on a lack of neighborhood compatibility. In terms of the Permit Streamlining Act, the original decision deadline for the proposed Attachments 1-8 P. C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2014-00064) September 9, 2014 Page 2 project was June 20, 2014. However, the property owner verbally agreed to a 90-day extension at the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, making the new decision deadline September 18, 2014. Since the public hearing has been closed, comments from Commissioners and the public are limited to ensuring the attached Draft P.C. Resolution accurately reflects the decision made at the last Planning Commission meeting. If the language in the attached Draft P.C. Resolution does not reflect the majority, or consensus, of the Planning Commission with regard to the Height Variation findings, then the Planning Commission has the opportunity to clarify the resolution by reading into the record language that more accurately reflects the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project. Continued discussion on the merits of the project cannot occur without re-noticing the public hearing. Due to the September 181h decision deadline, it is not possible to re- notice the public hearing. Attachments 1-9 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-_ 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-_ Page 1of3 Attachments 1-10 the garage, an increase in the rear yard setback from 19' -3" to 33' -8 ", elimination of balconies along the rear fa9ade of the second story addition, clerestory windows and one (1) standard window along the rear fa9ade 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, 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; 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: 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 2 of 3 Attachments 1-11 letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on September 24, 2014. Section 3: 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 gth day of September 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: RECUSALS: ABSTENTIONS : ABSENT: Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission Gordon Leon Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 3 of 3 Attachments 1-12 P.C. Late Correspondence (September 9, 2014 P.C. Meeting) Attachments 1-13 Agenda Item No . 1 Case No. 2014 -00064 6321 Villa Rosa Testimony of Sayed (Sam") Hassan, Principal, for Applicant -Peachtree Family Trust I respectfully request that the Commission take action this evening that is wholly consistent with the narrow breath of discussion by the Commission that led to the motion to deny by a margin of 6 to 1 on August 26, 2014. It is my understanding that after the Commission narrowly failed to carry a motion that evening to approve by a vote of 3 to 4, that the second motion passed based on inability to approve the project due to only one finding - Neighborhood Compatibility (No. 8). The staff report and the draft resolution that are before the Commission this evening accurately reflect that that Commission has agreed that all other required findings - including view impairment (Nos. 4 and 5), cumulative view impairment (No. 6), and privacy (No. 9) have been met. Such ability and willingness by the Commission to make all the other findings is clear in the public record. I was present at the public hearing on August 26, 2014 and have viewed the video on the City's website. The Resolution for denial should only be approved by the Commission as long as the basis is narrowly defined in regards to Neighborhood Compatibility (No. 8). Any changes to the Resolution that expand the basis of denial would constitute an arbitrary and capricious action that is not supported by the public record. Further, any expansion of the basis of denial to include additional findings would prejudice the review by the City Council on appeal and deny the applicant certain rights of due process. Deprivation of due process would be the direct result of the failure of the Commission to have fully discussed inability to make multiple findings at a noticed public hearing in which both the applicant and interested third parties were present to provide additional testimony to the contrary. While I understand that I cannot be heard this evening, please make this written document a part of the public record and provide it to the Commission for its review. Signed :~ Date: September 9, 2014 Hassan 14 : Testimony 9-9-14 Attachments 1-14 P.C. Minutes (August 26, 2014 P.C. Meeting) Attachments 1-15 Commissioner Gerstner asked the City Attorney if she intended to send any correspondence to Green Hills relative to the comments submitted by G re e past week. City Attorney Lynch stated that she will be sending a letter to Gre ills admonishing them in regards to their obligations to comply with their existin onditional Use Permit. Commissioner Tomblin asked the City Attorney what type code enforcement actions will be taken in Green Hills fails to comply. City Attorney Lynch stated there are various opt io that could occur, one being civil injunction proceedings or possible criminal pro ed ings, another being the commencement of revocation proceedings . Commissioner Tomblin asked if there put on notice they are in violation. provisions to corrections once they have been City Attorney Lynch answered t Green Hills would have the opportunity to correct the violations . The motion to continu he public hearing to October 28, 2014 was approved, (7- 0). es commented that the Commission has heard extensive testimony from residents o are opposed to what has happened at Green Hills. He did not think those peopl ill be very happy if they felt the Commission had just continued the public hearing fm onths with absolutely no restrictions on Green Hills. He therefore encou ra d Green Hills to do their absolute best to comply with their operational condi f s . missioner Gerstner hoped Green Hills would also apply for the Variance during this e. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014- 00064): 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, noting this case has been before the Commission several times, noting the last public hearing was August 12th. She stated no changes have been made to the project since that time . She briefly discussed the background of the project and the changes that have been made. These changes include the reduction of the square footage, reduction in height, increased setbacks, reduction of privacy impacts, and reduction in individual and cumulative view impairment to a less than significant level. She pointed out corrections to the Resolution, which were included in the late correspondence. She stated that staff is Planning Commission Minutes August 26 , 2014 Page 18 Attachments 1-16 recommending the Commission review the project, and if it addresses the Commission's concerns relayed at the previous public hearing, to adopt the Resolution thereby approving the project. Sam Hassan stated this project was modified several times in order to meet all of the neighbors' concerns and the Planning Commission's comments. He stated he has done everything that staff and the Commission have asked him to do. He felt the proposed addition causes no significant view impacts and no unreasonable privacy impacts. He asked that the Commission approve his project. Arlen Osborne (6343 Villa Rosa) stated he supports the project, and was in favor of the revisions. William Sheh (6315 Villa Rosa) stated the City was founded on the principle of preserving the semi-rural character of the peninsula. As such, the residents try to enjoy the light, air, and open spaces. He stated the Los Verdes Hills neighborhood is a made up of predominately single story ranch homes of approximately 1,900 square feet, built in the early 1960s. He stated that over time there have been a few second story homes that have popped up, but not many. He noted these two-story additions were built before the passage of Measure M, which was voted on to stop such developments. He appreciated the efforts of Mr. Hassan in reducing the size of the home, however he felt the home will still be out of character with the single-story ranch home neighborhood. He felt the bulk and mass will make the house stick out, as it is at the apex of the curve of the street, on the high side of the street. He felt there still remains cumulative view issues and some privacy issues to be concerned with. He asked the Commission listen to the neighbor's concerns and take these concerns into consideration. Evelyn Kohler (27925 Alvarez Drive) stated her house is at a higher elevation and she has enjoyed panoramic views of the ocean and the mountains. However, she felt the applicant's project infringers upon those views. She realized this is in conflict with the staff report, however she noted if the houses directly below her on Villa Rosa were also permitted to have a second story addition that would take away her view. She stated she bought a home with a panoramic view, and Measure M should protect that view. Jim Kohler stated he shared the neighborhood concerns with this project's bulk and mass, view impairments, and privacy issues. He was most concerned with the cumulative impacts if projects such as this are approved. He noted the applicant is not just asking the Commission to approve a remodel, he is asking the Commission to approve exceptions to the Code. He felt that every time an exception is granted it makes it that much more difficult to deny the next request. He felt that approval of this project and subsequent projects will enable the creation of the very environment that Measure M was voted in to prevent. He asked the Commission deny this request. Julie Rice stated there is one full two-story home in the neighborhood and the others are garage pop-ups. She felt that if this project is approved as staff recommends, the ramifications are unmistakable for the community. She felt it will be an open invitation Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2014 Page 19 Attachments 1-17 to mansionize the community. She felt this was the reason Proposition M was passed. She questioned why someone would build a five bedroom, multi-bathroom, walk-in closets, two-story home on such a small lot. She asked the Commission to consider what the community will look like in five years if this project is approved. She asked the Commission to deny the project. Adele Fortune (6334 Rio Linda) stated when looking for her home her number one requirement was an ocean view. Her home has a view of the Santa Monica Bay, Malibu, and out to Santa Cruz Island. If the proposed remodel is approved, she felt it will impair the view of several houses and will set a precedent to make it much easier for future applicants to be approved, even if they impair ocean views. She requested the Commission deny the project and ask Mr. Hassan to respect his neighbors' views. Steve Nash (6334 Rio Linda) stated he wants to preserve the character of the neighborhood, and Measure M attempted to do this. He read sections from Measure M discussing the purpose of the Measure and the overwhelming support it received. He asked the Commission save the neighborhood views, reject mansionization, and protect the characteristics of the neighborhood. Akemichi Yamada (6320 Rio Linda) showed a photo that was taken from his property showing the location of three proposed windows that will look directly into his property. He stated the loss of privacy will make his house less attractive and will reduce the value. He noted that any two-story design will have upper floor windows that will look onto his property, creating privacy problems. He suggested a single-story home or a split-level design, which would eliminate the privacy concerns. He stated the sloped Villa Rosa street seems ideal for digging from the lower side of the street. He noted a split-level will eliminate problems of bulky appearance, blocking views, and infringing on privacy. He asked the Commission to encourage the applicant to use a split-level approach. Mary Beth Corrado (6309 Villa Rosa) stated she still has significant concerns with neighborhood compatibility, reminding the Commission this will still be the second largest home on the street and on the smallest lot. She did not think the home will be compatible with any home on the street. She noted the two pop-ups are still predominately a ranch style home with a pop-up over the garage. She felt this proposed home will set precedence and will end twenty-five years of neighborhood stability. She felt this will open the flood gates for all kinds of additional, similar applications. She noted that 47 citizens have signed a petition identifying their concerns with compatibility size, privacy, and views, and over 68 letters have been submitted to the City voicing these concerns. She noted 14 citizens have spoken against the project at both the May 27th and July sth Planning Commission meetings. She stated the residents of the area are committed to maintaining their open single story ranch environment while supporting compatible modernization and improvement efforts of new and current residents. Planning Commission Minutes August 26 , 2014 Page 20 Attachments 1-18 Jeff Lewis stated his law firm is representing several of the homeowners opposing this project. He handed out a version of staff's neighborhood compatibility analysis, explaining the original analysis shows the smallest lot size at 7,015 square feet. He noted the proposal is to build the 19th biggest structure, which exceeds the average by 1,400 square feet and also exceeds the size of two of the three existing two-story homes. He felt what the Commission is deciding is whether or not this entire street will now be comprised of two-story structures . He felt this is why Prop M was passed and why there is neighborhood compatibility. He stated this City does not approve or reject projects based on a popular vote or lynch mob mentality. Rather, the Commission is supposed to use their experience to decide whether or not this project is in scale or in step with the preexisting houses. He felt this project is too massive, too intrusive, and results in serious privacy and view impacts. He stated that in dealing with neighborhood compatibility scale, square footage, and two-story homes are all explicitly listed as factors in the Municipal Code. Lastly, he noted the applicant's discussion on the big reduction he has made in the square footage of the home. He felt this big reduction speaks more about the unreasonableness of the first proposal than any true concession that has been made . He stated there is nothing in the findings that says when the applicant proposes something outrageous and then proposes concessions, that the Commission should take that into account as part of the neighborhood compatibility process. He asked the Commission to deny the application. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Lewis what he felt the solution to this problem was . Mr. Lewis answered that there are many areas in the City where a five bedroom massive residence would be welcome . He also felt the split-level approach would work. Lastly, he noted that he did not think it was the Commission's job to tinker with or suggest to an applicant what he can do to change his application. He noted most of the Commissioners are not design professionals and should not be advising an applicant on how best to present their project. He stated the Commission should be determining whether or not a project presented to the Commission is compatible or not. Vice Chairman Nelson noted that this neighborhood is made up of homes built in the 1960s and many desperately call for modernization. He asked why he would not call this a project to modernize a home . Mr. Lewis answered that this is a proposed two-story home and in this particular neighborhood it's too much too fast. He noted that no Commissioner was appointed to put too big of a house on too small of a lot. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Lewis if he has had any discussion with his clients in regards to a split-level home design rather than a two-story home. Mr. Lewis stated he was only recently retained and has not had the opportunity to fully reach out to the applicant on this project. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2014 Page 21 Attachments 1-19 Chairman Leon felt neighborhood compatibility is an interesting concept, stating that neighborhoods often wish to upgrade and have larger houses. He asked Mr. Lewis how the Planning Commission can be arbiters of a neighborhood that wants to upgrade versus maintaining a status quo where a significant number of neighbors want to improve the neighborhood. Mr. Lewis understood, however he noted in this instance a split-level design, a single story design, or even a more modest second floor design would still achieve the objective of modernization without going to the extreme that is currently proposed. Kevin Hamilton (6309 Villa Rosa) stated he disagrees with staff finding Nos. 6 and 8 and therefore recommended denial of the project. He stated the size of the structure is still grossly too large, the style of the structure is not in character with a neighborhood dominated by single story ranch homes, the structure limits the openness from neighboring properties and the neighborhood streetscape, the structure still invades the privacy of neighbors, and there will be significant cumulative view impairment. He stated this decision will set a precedence not only for this neighborhood, but for Rancho Palos Verdes. He felt that allowing this structure will open the floodgates to a non-conforming mishmash of one and two-story homes. Vincent Liu (6320 Villa Rosa) stated he was opposed to the revised remodel. He stated there is an old saying that says don't do to others what you don't want done to you. He showed a photo of the silhouette and how there will be a direct view from three windows looking down onto his property. With that he urged the Commissioners, before they make their decision, to look at the pictures taken from his property and assume they are the owner. They should ask themselves how much privacy and money it would take away from them if the Planning Commission approved this project. Sam Glenn (6308 Rio Linda) stated modernization, by definition, does not mean building a two-story home. Modernization can be adding square footage to a single- story residence. He noted homes in the neighborhood that have done just that. He stated this is a single-story neighborhood and this is really the first time a two-story addition has been applied for under the criteria that is in place today. He agreed that if this were the only two-story home going into the neighborhood it probably wouldn't make a difference, however this will set the precedence for other two-story homes to be built. He did not think this proposed addition meets the criteria for neighborhood compatibility and urged the Commission to deny the project. Ray Nuber (27919 Alvarez Dr) felt the modifications the applicant has made are moving the project in the right direction. However, he did not agree with staff's recommendation to approve the project. He particularly did not agree with staff's conclusion that there will not be a significant cumulative view impact. He showed several photos taken from his rear yard demonstrating how, if the single story homes behind his house were to add a second story, his ocean view would be obliterated. He also did not agree with staff's conclusion that these plans are acceptable in terms of neighborhood compatibility. He questioned why staff's position had changed relative to the previous report, given the Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2014 Page 22 Attachments 1-20 significant change in the plans is that the height has been reduced by one foot. He asked the Planning Commission if they felt this change addresses the concerns that motivated the Commission to not approve the version shown in the previous plans . He recommended the applicant build out rather than up, as he felt this would address the neighbor's concerns with compatibility, bulk and mass, privacy, and view impacts . At the same time it would give the applicant the square footage they have said is the objective of the project. He reiterated that no multi-story modification has been approved in this neighborhood since Proposition M was adopted. He recommended the Planning Commission reject this application. Sam Hassan (in rebuttal) stated he has respect for all of his neighbors and he has followed all of the City guidelines in everything he has done. He disagreed with the comments regarding cumulative view impacts. In regards to privacy and the window, noting the window was 60x60 and has been reduced to 48x48. If this is the only privacy issue, he stated he would put in a tree in front of the window so that he could not see anything. In regards to a split level, he stated he would not demolish his house, and did not have the budget to do a split level. He did not think a split level would help him and would not work. He stated he is not blocking anybody's view and he is not intruding on anyone's privacy. Commissioner Tomblin referred to the rear elevation and asked Mr. Hassan to clarify what rooms the three upper floor windows were located in. Mr. Hassan noted one window will be in a closet, one in a bathroom, and the other is a 48x48 window. He noted he wanted to plant trees along the rear of the house. Commissioner Tomblin asked if any of the windows were opaque. Mr. Hassan answered that the windows can be opaque. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff to address cumulative view, noting that each application is looked at individually and that a view obstruction on the higher pad could be a reason to deny the proposed project. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that because of the changes in elevation along the street, if there is a property that is built at sixteen feet it could potentially obstruct views even though it is at the by-right height of sixteen feet. She briefly explained how staff performs a cumulative view analysis. She showed the original design of this project, which appeared to be a large mass in its elevations. She noted the current design, pointing out how the mass has been reduced. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2014 Page 23 Attachments 1-21 Commissioner Gerstner looked at a photo taken from 27925 Alvarez Drive, and noted that if the neighbor of the applicant were to build a second story addition at the same height as the one proposed on the applicant's property, because of the elevation changes on the street it would appear five feet higher from the home on Alvarez Drive and put it into the horizon line. He asked staff if this is not cumulative view impairment. Associate Planner Mikhail stated that, as the applicant's addition is currently designed, staff feels the cumulative view impact has been reduced to a less than significant level. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they had an example of a neighborhood where several homes in a row have added a second story addition and caused a cumulative view impact. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that all homes constructing a second story addition at one time does not typically occur. Director Rojas added that this is a unique finding, as it is based on something that may or may not happen in the future. Commissioner Emenhiser commented that he has had mixed feelings about this project for awhile, and he has not been sold on the argument this application will set a second story precedence in the neighborhood. He also has not been sold on the cumulative view impact because it may or may not happen at some point in the future. He stated that what he has been sold on is the fact that, even with the redesign, this will be the second largest home on the second smallest lot. That, combined with the fact that there has been opposition to the proposed project from the majority of the neighborhood is leading him to oppose the project. Vice Chairman Nelson explained the reason he put out the motion to approve this project is because the homeowner has done everything that this Commission has asked. He stated that all the owner has to do to eliminate the privacy concern is plant sixteen foot high trees in the backyard , and the neighbor will not be able to look at his house. He also doubted that approving this project will then prompt a flood of two-story additions in the neighborhood. He respected this neighborhood and its ranch style homes, however he felt a homeowner has the right to develop his property for his family. Chairman Leon felt there is another way to look at neighborhood compatibility, and what it comes down to is if everybody puts up a 3,800 square foot house in this neighborhood, would it change the character of the neighborhood . He stated the character of the neighborhood in this case is relatively modest, ranch style houses . If they all get remodeled and look like this house, is the neighborhood going to be the same neighborhood. He 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 Plann ing Commission Minutes August 26 , 2014 Page 24 Attachments 1-22 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. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff, if the Commission were to deny the project and it was appealed to the City Council, could the Commission include in the motion that the appeal fees will be reduced or waived. Director Rojas answered that only the City Council can waive fees . Therefore, whoever appeals the decision must pay the appeal fee, however they can submit a fee waiver request to the City Council and there are specific findings the City Council must make in order to grant that fee waiver. He noted that if they prevail in their appeal their fee is refunded. In regards to privacy, Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff if there is a way in which windows overlooking a rear property can be conditioned so that some vegetation must be planted for privacy concerns. Director Rojas explained privacy is one of the easier impacts to mitigate, however using vegetation is usually a last resort, as it has to be maintained at a certain height and can be changed or removed. Staff prefers to mitigate privacy concerns with window design using opaque windows or some other similar method. Commissioner Cruikshank explained that in looking at the redesigned project he did not see an issue in regards to views or bulk and mass, however he was concerned with the privacy issue. He was very concerned that these second story windows look directly into the house and yard of the neighbor. However, if conditions were added to address the issue he may then be able to support the project. The motion to approve the project as recommended by staff failed, (3-4) with Commissioners James, Emenhiser, Gerstner, and Chairman Leon dissenting. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to deny the project without prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Director Rojas clarified that if the motion to deny the project passes, staff will prepare the Resolution for the next meeting's Consent Calendar. The motion to deny the project without prejudice was approved, (6-1) with Vice Chairman Nelson dissenting. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to recommend to the City Council, assuming the applicant appeals this decision, that the appeal fees be waived, seconded by Chairman Leon. Commissioner James commented that the applicant has done everything that the Commission has asked him to do at the last several hearings, and it certainly wasn't for Planning Commission Minutes August26,2014 Page 25 Attachments 1-23 want of trying on the applicant's part that this project is being denied by the Commission . Therefore, he would vote in favor of the motion. Director Rojas noted that, notwithstanding the Planning Commission's recommendation, this is not one of the findings indicated in the Code that the City Council has to make in order to grant a fee waiver. The motion was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Gerstner dissenting. 3. The Terraces Master Sign Program Amendment (Case No. ZON2014-00144): 28901 Western Avenue Directo ojas presented the staff report, noting how the new owners of the Terraces Shopping enter are proposing changes to the Center's approved sign program. He e proposed changes, as noted in the staff report. Commissioner E nhiser noted the applicant is proposing sixty seconds on the LED lights, while staff is oposing that the LED images not change for five minutes. He asked staff what the "dd le ground might be. He explained that he would like to be sympathetic to an impo nt business in the City and to allow as much as possible without bending the cur re Director Rojas agreed, explai · g staff's approach was to not completely deny the proposed LED signs, but try to ke them work with the current code. He explained that staff recognized some of t hes signs might create a negative reaction from residents because of the flashing . ff felt that it's open as to what the Commission might feel is an appropriate duration o n image before it changes and that would not be considered a moving sign or have an ve rse impact to homes that may see the flashing. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if there were a homes in this area, as he thought it was commercial on both sides of the street. Director Rojas answered there are condominiums just n Commissioner Cruikshank stated he frequently drives on We e rn Avenue and did not think having something that is distracting or changing is a g oo ea . However, he noted that sometimes you really have to watch these signs to see em change, as they could be quite subtle. He asked staff to clarify the LED signs . Director Rojas felt the applicant could better clarify the location of the sig however he explained staff's approach was that whatever image was on the sign not ch stay in place for at least five minutes before it changes . Commissioner Tomblin stated he agreed with the staff's recommendations with the exception of the LED signs . He explained that there tend to be a lot of issues with LE Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2014 Page 26 Attachments 1-24 P .C. Staff Report (August 26, 2014 P.C. Meeting) • Late Correspondence from August 26, 2014 P.C. Mtg. • Public Correspondence since August 12, 2014 P.C. Mtgs. • August 12, 2014 P.C. Staff Report • Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ {Approval) • Pubic Correspondence since July 8, 2014 P.C. Mtg. Attachments 1-25 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERD ES MEMORANDUM TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL ROJAS, DIR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART DATE: AUGUST 26, 2014 SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. 2014-00064); PROJECT ADDRESS -6321 VILLA ROSA (LANDOWNER -PEACHTREE FAMILY TRUST) Staff Coordinator: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner The subject application was scheduled for the August 12, 2014 Planning Commission agenda as a continued public hearing from the July 8, 2014 meeting to allow the applicant additional time to redesign the project to address the Planning Commission's continued concerns, namely with respect to the height and overall size of the structure. Due to the breadth and scope of the items on the August 12th agenda, the Planning Commission continued, without any discussion, the public hearing on the subject application to its August 25th meeting. The item is now ba1ck before the Planning Commission for its consideration. Attached, in its entirety, is the August 121h Staff Report that was previously transmitted to the Commission. Since the August 12th meeting, Staff has received one additional public comment letter suggesting an "order of preference" as a guideline for future projects to assure neighborhood compatibility and to mitigate view and privacy impacts. This public comment letter is attached to this memo. Additionally, an updated P.C. Resolution that reflects the August 25th date is also attached to this memo. In summary, the attachments to this memo are as follows: • Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2014-__ (Approval -Dated August 25, 2014) • Public Comment Letter (since August 12th PC Meeting) • August 12th Planning Commission Staff Report • Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ (Approval) • Public Correspondence since July 8, 2014 P.C. meeting Attachments 1-26 • P.C. MinUies July 8, 2014 • Late Correspondence from July 8, 2014 meeting • P.C. Staff Report (July 8, 2014) o P.C. Minutes of the May 27, 2014 Meeting o Public Correspondence since May 27, 2014 P.C. meeting o P.C. Staff Report (May 27, 2014) o Late Correspondence from May 27, 2014 meeting • Project Plans Attachments 1-27 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 471 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY ADDITION, 1,532 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, 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 the garage, an increase in the rear yard setback from 19'-3" to 33'-8", elimination of balconies along the rear fac;ade of the second story addition, clerestory windows and one (1) standard window along the rear fa9ade 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 created 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, Attachments 1-28 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 26, 2014, the Planning Commission heard public testimony and considered the merits of a project with additional revisions; 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 3 (Section 15303) since the project involves construction of an addition to an existing residence on a legally subdivided lot; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a Height Variation to allow the construction of a 1,215 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 attempt to hold an open-house on April 12, 2014 to obtain additional signature. 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." B. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails), which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as City-designated viewing areas. Specifically, due to the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structure is not visible from a public viewing area or viewing site, is not located in the City's Coastal Zone, and will therefore, not impair a view. C. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 2 of 10 Attachments 1-29 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 fac;ade, which is the fac;ade 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'-1 O'', to a maximum height of 22'-7". The reduction in 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'-1 O" 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 reasonable minimize view impairment impacts . 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 this property if a similar addition over 16'-0", such as the proposed project, was also constructed on other nearby properties. According the City's Height Variation Guidelines, the assessment did not extend beyond four (4) parcels adjacent to the subject property . Based on the existing neighborhood, the four (4) closest properties P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 3 of 10 Attachments 1-30 to the applicant are located at 6315 Villa Rosa, 6309 Villa Rosa, 6303 Villa Rosa and 6329 Villa Rosa. Given the number of design modifications including, but not limited to, reducing the structure height by 2'-10", significantly reducing the second story side fac;ade 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. 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 (3,841 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 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 structure was reduced from 25'-5" to 22'-7", further minimizing the overall bulk and mass of the structure to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the project has been designed 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 fac;ade 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 Planning Commission 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 4of10 Attachments 1-31 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 lien 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. 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 plan and maintain small shrubs in front of the retaining wall at the front of the residence. 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 with 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 property 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 471 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 5 of 10 Attachments 1-32 Section 4: 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, August 27, 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 August 27, 2014. Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Planning Case No . ZON2014-00064) for the construction of a new 471 square foot first floor addition, 1,532 square foot 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 25th day of August 2014, by the following vote : AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSSALS: ABSENT: Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director Secretary to the Planning Commission Gordon Leon Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 6 of 10 Attachments 1-33 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2014-00061 (HV, GR, SPR) (Peachtree Family Trust, 6321 Villa Rosa Rd.) General Conditions: 1 . Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval 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 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 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 7 of 10 Attachments 1-34 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 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, 9:00AM 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 7 AM 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 (47.8% proposed). 14. The approved additions shall maintain setbacks as depicted on the APPROVED plans for both the first and second floor additions. BUILDING SETBACK 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 8 of 10 Attachments 1-35 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 3,841 square-foot, 2-story single-family residence, which includes a 404 square-foot 2-car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION 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 . 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 9 of 10 Attachments 1-36 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. 25 . 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. 26 . (Privacy Mitigation) The windows along the rear fa9ade of the second story shall be installed and maintained as depicted in the APPROVED plans. 27 . (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 Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing. P.C . Resolution No . 2014- Page 10 of 10 Attachments 1-37 P.C. Late Correspondence (from August 26, 2014 P.C. Meeting) Attachments 1-38 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 fa9ade, which is the fa9ade 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 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 ttian 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'-1 O" 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 reasonable minimize view impairment impacts. 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 this property if a similar addition over 16'-0", such as the proposed project, was also constructed on other nearby properties . Accord · t e i t Variation Guidelines, the assessment did not extend beyond fou (4) arcels nearest to the subject property. Based on the existing neighborhood, the four ) cos s prope 1 s P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 3 of 10 Attachments 1-39 F. G. H. a lica tare located at 6315 Villa Rosa, 6309 Villa Rosa, 6303 Villa Rosa and 632 Rio inaa. iven the number of design modifications including, but not limited to, ,t.--. re uc1ng e s ructure height by 2'-1 O", significantly reducing the second story side~ fa9ade 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. 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. 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 (3,841 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 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 structure was reduced from 25'-5" to 22'-7", further minimizing the overall bulk and mass of the structure to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the project has been designed with a hipped roof and second story setbacks to reduce the bulk and mass of the structure. 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 fac;ade 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 Planning Commission 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 P .C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 4 of 10 Attachments 1-40 --7 -J Section 4: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision m:ay 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 lette r must be filed wi t · fifte 5) calenda r days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM o We nesday , Septembe r ~ 10 , 201 A $2,27 5 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If s e 1me y, Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5 :30 PM o Septembe r 10, 2014 . <::;.A---..... Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064) for the construction of a new 471 square foot first floor addition, 1,532 square foot 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 th i 261h day of August 201 , y the following vote: <:- AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSSALS: ABSENT: Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director Secretary to the Planning Commission Gordon Leon Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 6 of 10 Attachments 1-41 Leza Mikhail From: :ent: To: Cc : Subject: Leza, Paul & Suzie <paul.suzie@yahoo.com> Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:47 AM Leza Mikhail sh2800@hotmail .com Re : 6321 villa rosa drive RECEIVED AUG 2 6 ·2014 eOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT Unfortunately, I can't make tonight's meeting but wanted to let you know that I still OK with the compromises that Sam has made to his design. Good luck. Paul Sent from my iPad >On May 27, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpv.com> wrote: > > Hello Mr. and Mrs. Cyril, > >Thank you for your comments . I will be sure to include them in Late Correspondence to the Planning Commission . > > 'Leza Mikhail > Associate Planner > > City of Rancho Palos Verdes > Planning Department > 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. > Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 > www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm :> (310} 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f > lezam@rpv.com > > >-----Original Message---- > From: Paul & Suzie [mailto:paul.suzie@yahoo.com] >Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:03 PM >To: Leza Mikhail; sh2800@hotmail.com >Subject: 6321 villa rosa drive > >Leza, >I wanted to update you on my ongoing conversation with Sam Hassan . He and I met today to talk about my concerns about his proposed remodel. He listened and understands my concerns that his proposed home was too high and would partially block the ocean view from my home at 6302 villa rosa drive. We discussed some compromises which I "'elieve address my concern . Sam seems like he is genuinely trying to do the right thing with his communications with .'e neighbors, and I applaud him for that. I also strongly support investing in our neighborhood as it desperately needs it. I hope the hearing goes well tomorrow and that we are able to find a good compromise. Attachments 1-42 > >Thank you, > Paul and Suzanne Cyril > · Sent from my iPad 2 Attachments 1-43 -----Original Messacie----- i::.,on1· P··; 11 0 ~L1-·1·e [~1 ... i · .,. ..... , " ~ ·-',..rf ·~•-,.. · · ---·· , I • CL ..... t'( '-' L :: c .1:-\···-~/,;:.\;-·r'·~:~.;J! .. :.'c.~:;1_1,),;..:;,..1 1 :1 j Sent: Mondc:.y, May 26, 2014 2:03 Pi\li To· L€Z6 l\fli1'<l-1::: "ri· r:..!--.:;; :'.)( 1i:t;i;;1 .--·:·..,..,.:.:: -...... -~ .. • i •• ~ l '-''· t=''='-~ I -··Ii i> ··-V '···i...a ·~Lit"'l 0 '"'i· 5 ·-::.?·i vi),'rc' ··os::i ,..ir1·'·'8 ._ '~/. '.J•-• ·• \..J-• r I ., I ..... \.to 'I Leza. ~ECEIVECI AUG 1 1 201q COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN "i DEPARTMENT I wantec.~ ·:.o upda·~e ~1ou on n·,y ~ngoing con versation ·.,•,1ith 8ET11 Hassa;·i. H~ Cine: : met todc;_y to talk about my concerns about l1is proposed re:·nodel. He listenec: and understands my concerns that his proposed home was too l-iigh and woulc1 pa1iia!ly blocf< ·ihe ocean view from my home at 6302 villa rosa drive. \Ne Ciscussed so111e compromises which ! believe address my concern. SE!.Ti se.e1<1s like he is genuinely tryiilg k) do tile rigllt thing with his communications with ·~n8 neighbci's , and ! app!aud him for that. ! aiso strongly suppo rt !nvestin~1 in ou ( neighbo1·hood as it desperataly needs it. r hope the hee.ring goes 1Nell tomo :T~1_;v and t!lat we are able to iind a good comp1·ornise. Than!" you, Paul and Suzanne Cyril Sent frorn my i Pad Attachments 1-44 t1ECEIVEb AUG 1 l 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN·1 DEPARTMENT City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department Attn: Leza Mikhail 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re : Case #ZON2014 -00064 Dear Leza : :? j·~ "? L .. ~-y S ~·i ~!t~(; (; 63/ g Vig~ Rusf D :-'.·;1 ~,; .' L'· /I · I ... May 9. 2014 I am the next door neighbor to Sam Hassan and his family My home is on the west side o·; his home First of all, l want to let you and the City know that I am 100% in favor or the remodel/rebuik1 and 2"0 floor addition that the Hassan Family is planning to do to this property. Shortly after the sale of this home , Sam Hassan stopped by to in1roduce himself and to let me know what h is plans were for his new home. I liked him right away and was very impressed . Upon meeting h is w i fe, Rehab, and 1he ir children . I commented to them, that I had never met such a wonderful, f nendly, caring and just plain nice group of people. They have become and continue to be my friends , a nice thing to have in a neighborhood . Unfortunately, I cannot say that about all the people who live in this area . I have been approached by several who were trying to convince me lo sign their petition or go along w i th their dispute o'\l er the remodeling of this home. They argued on the points of privacy and view and I was actually asked about "my view" being affected . ! have only a very small amount of view across Villa Rosa through the roofs of the houses there. which is fine for me. I have a two story house on my west side and another 2 story across the street from me on the South side . This new remodel and addition WILL NOT affect my view, nor will it affect my privacy in any way, nor will it cause me lo feel "squeezed in- between". I think these people have forgotten what ii is like to have more than 2 people in their houses , having children around . They are living in 3 -4 bedroom homes with only two people in the house Try adding 5 more and they would maybe think differently. Maybe we should all be thinking about what we would do if we were in Sam and Rehab Hassan 's shoes. I like their remodel plans and th i nk this is a positive addition to our neighborhood , adding value to our homes! Neighbors are supposed to be friendly, supportjve, kind . helpful, g iving and loving . Instead , :i few of the neighbors on Villa Rosa and Rio Linda are just the opposite, showing they are self-centered, selfish. uncaring . unfriendly and almost mean in their treatment of our new neighbors . the Hassan Family. My late husband, who died 4 ~years ago, would be appalled by what is going on and would be extremely supportive to Sam Hassan as I am. Thank you and God bless you. ·-L \ !-.. ' • -,.:., .J_ ,.....__ l_ _,,..· .. ~\. ::..~ ~-•.. c. .l-__ 27 Attachments 1-45 AECEIVC:D PEACHTREE FAMILY TRUST 6321VILLA ROSA DR AUG 11 2014- RANCHO PALOS VERDES 90t1,~MUNl1Y DEVE:L OPMEN '! May 3rd. 2014 oEPARlMEN1 iH:CEl\/EO ir; · i ) 2014 C:OMMUl~ITY DEV!:1 ,,1 ,. ')E PAfi'TIJ.IO '' This letter is to advice you that we are a neighbor of Mr. Hassan in Villa Rosa Dr We believe that Mr. Hassan's plans to improve his home will enhance the value of not only his home but also the entire neighborhood. We agree that the improvements to Mr. Hassan's home are not objectionable but to the contrary it will be good for our neighborhood. When you beautify the homes in our neighborhood it is great for the area . We desire to see the city of Rancho Palos Verdes approve Mr. Hassan plans expeditiously. Name Address .la ne~ Shue g33S Vl\(c, Ro~~ S i gn~tu~-~~ --~Y?Y p_uvY ;L.6/_lylo P 6':> '}Z. v'I U.J:\ .f2.c_>P. ........ ·:~"';,-' . . ,/~·'i.... /~'. ~ 20 Attachments 1-46 Ms. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3094(. lawthorne Boulevard 6307 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 August 1, 2014 RECEIVED AUG 0 8 2014 COMMUNITY DF.VELOP~~Er~ 1· DEPAR'rMENl Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Dear Ms. Mikhail, We are writing to you to express our opposition to the disproportionately largtJ, two story remodel planned for 6321 Villa Rosa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes. You have heard all the arguments against it, and we do not have to repeat them here. Permitting approval of this huge addition will set a precedent in our neighborhood for the mansionization of most homes sold hereafter. Perhaps the precedent has already been set. Sincerely, Eva Muchnlck, Dr. P.H . . ~ ( AL.iL:xf' Carl Muchnick, M.D. Attachments 1-47 Public Correspondence (since August 12, 2014 P.C. Meeting) Attachments 1-48 Reference: Case #ZON2014-00064, 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Date: August 15, 2014 Subject: Comments on Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Dear Honorable Commissioners, It has been a learning process for me commenting on the proposed remodel and attending the Public Hearings. I now know Commissioners are performing very difficult tasks. I am wondering ifthe following order of preferences can be established as a guideline for remodeling approaches to assure future remodels would be compatible with neighborhood and to mitigate problems of blocking views and infringing on privacy. Preference #1, single-story approach: It should be encouraged to use a single-story design by maximally utilizing the lot (up to 52%). It is recommended to grandfather (waive) the front set-back. This could typically provide as much as 3,200 sq-ft (including garage) or more ofliving space. Advantage: The height is below 16 feet. Preference #2, split-level approach: If a single-story design does not produce a desired living space, a split-level design should be explored. A sloped street should be a great candidate for digging the garage and utility room below the main floor. It is recommended to grandfather (waive) the front set-back. This could typically provide as much as 3,800 sq-ft (including garage) or more of living space. Advantage: The height may be kept very close to 16 feet. Preference #3, two-story approach: The two-story design should be considered only after preferences #1 and #2 are extensively explored. The applicant of a two-story remodel should be required to perform reasonable due diligence on impacts to neighbors. A height variance should be a privilege. Currently, an applicant often proposes a two-story design without even assessing the impacts on neighbors. The flag is raised, pushing the envelope to the maximum limit of the variance, to find out if any bullets start flying. Some neighbors do not even know that they have a right to voice objections. The burden of proof regarding impacts seems on neighbors instead of an applicant. The envelope seems reduced slightly after each hearing. I sincerely hope that the order of preferences is established as a guideline for remodeling. Sincerely, Akemichi Yamada 6320 Rio Linda Dr. Attachments 1-49 P.C. Staff Report (August 12, 2014 P.C. Meeting} Attachments 1-50 RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF T E PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL ROJAS -COMMUNI ELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: AUGUST 12, 2014 SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. 2014-00064); PROJECT ADDRESS -6321 VILLA ROSA (LANDOWNER -PEACHT E FAMILY TRUST) Staff Coordinator: Leza Mikhail, Associate Plann r RECOMMENDATION Review the revised project and if it addresses the Planning Commission's concerns with neighborhood compatibility, adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_, thereby approving a request for a first and second floor addition, a new 3'-1 O" tall retaining wall, and 52.97 cubic yards of associated grading along the east side of the property. BACKGROUND On February 10, 2014, the applicant submitted Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review applications to the Community Development Department for review and processing. The applicant requested approval to construct a 516 square foot first floor addition, 2,098 square foot second story addition, second story balconies at the front and rear of the property, and a 3'-1 O" tall retaining wall with associated grading to accommodate the proposed additions. On May 27, 2014, the applications for the new two-story addition were heard by the Planning Commission. At that time, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue the proposed project to allow the applicant additional time to redesign the project to address Staff's identified impacts related to privacy, neighborhood compatibility and view impairment. As noted in the May 27, 2014 P.C. Staff Report (attached), Staff's identified impacts included direct privacy and bulk and mass impacts to the neighboring property at 6320 Rio Linda Dr., bulk and mass impacts as seen from the street and 6309 Villa Rosa, and individual and cumulative view impairment impacts as seen from 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Drive. At that meeting, the Planning Commission heard testimony from a number of neighbors regarding these same issues of concern. As noted in the Minutes of the May 27, 2014 meeting (attached), the Planning Commission agreed with Staff's identified impacts. Additionally, some Commissioners requested that the applicant consider a split-level design or a significantly reduced second-story footprint, and a majority of the Attachments 1-51 P. C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2014-00064) August 12, 2014 Page 2 Planning Commission noted that the rear yard balconies should be removed to eliminate privacy, and bulk and mass concerns. After hearing the public testimony and discussing the merits of the proposed project, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 8, 2014 to allow the Applicant time to modify the design of the project to address concerns related to view impairment, bulk and mass, and privacy impacts. On July 8, 2014, a revised project was heard by the Planning Commission, which continued to have Staff concerns. At that time, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to August 12, 2014 to allow the applicant time to further redesign the project to address Staff's continued concerns with the proposed project's impacts to cumulative view impairment. As noted in the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission minutes (attached), after hearing the 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, namely with respect to the height and overall size of the structure, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 12, 2014. The item is now back before the Planning Commission for its consideration of a further revised project. DISCUSSION As noted in the July 8, 2014 Staff Report (attached), the applicant presented a revised project to the Planning Commission that addressed a majority of the Planning Commission's previous concerns related to bulk and mass, and privacy impacts. Specifically, the applicant proposed a revised project with increased second-story setbacks, and reduced height and square footage which softened the appearance of the structure as seen from the street and most neighboring properties. Additionally, the applicant presented a new architectural design that blended with the existing neighborhood. The Planning Commission was in favor of the following revisions to the proposed project: • Eliminated a portion of the 2nd story over the garage to reduce the bulk and mass impacts as seen from the street and neighboring properties. • Increased the rear yard setback from 19'-3" to 33'-8" • Eliminated the rear yard balconies from the design of new 2nd story addition, thereby eliminating the privacy impact concerns from the balconies. • Provided clerestory windows along the rear fa9ade and one (1) standard bedroom window which was setback 35'-11" from the rear property line. • The second-story ceiling heights were reduced from 9'-0" to 8'-0". • The roof pitch was reduced from 4:12 to 2.5:12. • The north side yard setback was increased to 4'-4" from the first floor Attachments 1-52 P. C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2014-00064) August 12, 2014 Page 3 footprint and 2'-0" from the first floor footprint along the south side. • Undulating front and rear facades were incorporated into the design. • The overall square footage of the residence was reduced from 4,452 square feet to 3,886 square feet. Although the applicant addressed a majority of the Planning Commission's concerns, the Planning Commission agreed with Staff's assessment of cumulative view impairment and noted that the applicant should further reduce the height of the structure to reduce the compatibility and cumulative view impacts to a less than significant level. More specifically, although the applicant has already reduced the height of the proposed second story addition from 25'-5" to 23'-7" (a reduction of 1 '-1 O"), the Planning Commission, after discussing further redesign options with the applicant, requested that further reduction in the height of the second story be provided . As such, the applicant has further redesigned the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns with certain design modifications. These modifications as they relate to neighborhood compatibility and cumulative view impairment are discussed below, pursuant to the respective findings. View Impairment The Height Variation finding related to cumulative view impairment (Height Variation Finding No . 6) is listed below, with Staff's analysis of the revised project following: 4. 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. The original project included a second story addition that reached a height of 25'-5". The Planning Commission agreed with Staff's analysis and concluded that the original proposed project created significant cumulative view impacts, as seen from the viewing area of 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr . These properties are located approximately 15-20 feet higher in elevation than the subject property and have views of the Pacific Ocean as seen from their respective primary viewing areas (living rooms), above the rooftops of the homes along Villa Rosa and Rio Linda. In an effort to address cumulative view impairment impacts described in Height Variation Finding No. 6 of the May 27, 2014 Staff Report, the applicant reduced the overall height of the structure from 25'-5" to 23-7", resulting in a 1 '-1 O" reduction in structure height, which was presented to the Planning Commission at the May 27, 2014 meeting . This modification was accomplished by reducing the roof pitch from a 4:12 to 2.5:12 pitch. However, as discussed in the July 8, 2014 Staff Report, while this change reasonably minimized the view impairment and decreased the individual view impairment impact to a less than significant degree for the Attachments 1-53 P. C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2014-00064) August 12, 2014 Page4 neighboring properties located along Alvarez, Staff determined, and the Planning Commission concurred, that significant cumulative view impact (Height Variation Finding No. 6), still existed to the residences at 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. In an effort to further mitigate the cumulative view impacts to these three properties, the applicant has further reduced the height of the structure to 22'-7", resulting in a 2'-10" total reduction in the structure height since the applicant was originally presented to the Planning Commission. This additional modification was accomplished by reducing the ceiling height from 9'-0" to 8'-0". Based on the latest project revision described above, Staff believes that the project has been redesigned to preserve the horizon line as seen from the properties along Alvarez. In order to address the cumulative view finding, Staff must assess the amount of cumulative view impairment that would be caused to the abovementioned properties if a similar addition over 16'-0", such as the proposed project, was also constructed on other nearby properties. According the City's Height Variation Guidelines, in making this assessment, the properties that were used as the basis for the "cumulative view analysis," and which are in the view frame of 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr., are: 6315 Villa Rosa, 6309 Villa Rosa, 6303 Villa Rosa and 6329 Rio Linda. Based on a new view analysis, Staff believes that the additional reduction in structure height by 1 '-0" maintains views of the horizon line and a majority of the ocean views which would be preserved if all residences in the cumulative analysis were to construct an addition similar in design and height to the current project. As such, Staff is of the opinion that there is no significant view impairment caused and Finding No. 6 can be made. Neighborhood Compatibility The Height Variation finding related to neighborhood compatibility (Height Variation Finding No. 8) is listed below, with Staff's analysis of the revised project following: 8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. As addressed above, since the original submittal, the applicant has significantly redesigned the proposed project by reducing the overall square footage and footprint of the second floor, and provided additional second-story setbacks to soften the appearance of the structure as seen from the street and neighboring properties. Although Staff was of the opinion that the reduced structure size and additional second story setbacks provided a design that is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as seen from the street and neighboring properties, at the May 27, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission was concerned that the bulk and mass impacts were exacerbated by the overall height of the structure. In an effort to address the Planning Commission's concerns, the applicant further reduced the overall height of the structure by 1'-0", to a maximum height of 22'-7", as discussed in the previous finding. In addition to the height reduction, to further reduce bulk and mass impacts, the applicant increased the east side yard setback from 5'-0" to 6'-3". Attachments 1-54 P. C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2014-00064) August 12, 2014 Page5 This reduction in setback also reduced the overall square footage of the project by 45 square feet, resulting in a new project square footage of 3,841 square feet. With the combined height reduction of the structure, and the increased side yard setback, Staff continues to be able to support the revised project as it relates to neighborhood compatibility. If the applicant has provided modifications that address the Planning Commission's concerns with neighborhood compatibility expressed at the last hearing, a Resolution approving the revised project is attached to this report. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Permit Streamlining Act The original decision deadline for the proposed project was June 20, 2014. The property owner verbally agreed to a 90-day extension at the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, making the new decision deadline September 18, 2014. Public Correspondence Staff has received a number of new correspondence letters received since the last meeting on July 8, 2014. While some letters note support for the redesigned project, other letters continue to note concerns with compatibility. These new letters, along with previously received comment letters, are attached to this Staff Report . CONCLUSION Based on the analysis presented in the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes (attached), combined with the design modifications presented by the Applicant to address bulk and mass concerns and cumulative view impacts, Staff concludes that the proposed two-story project will be compatible with the existing residence and neighborhood, and will not create privacy or view impairment impacts to neighboring properties. As such, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2014-_, thereby approve the project as redesigned. ALTERNATIVES The following alternative is available for the Planning Commission to consider: 1) Deny, without prejudice, the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review and direct Staff to return to the September 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting with the appropriate resolution of approval. Attachments 1-55 P. C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2014-00064) August 12, 2014 Page 6 2) Deny, with prejudice, the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review and direct Staff to return to the September 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting with the appropriate resolution of approval. 3) Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. Attachments: • Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ (Approval) • Public Correspondence since July 8, 2014 P.C. meeting • P.C. Minutes July 8, 2014 • Late Correspondence from July 8, 2014 meeting • P.C. Staff Report (July 8, 2014) o P.C. Minutes of the May 27, 2014 Meeting o Public Correspondence since May 27, 2014 P.C. meeting o P.C. Staff Report (May 27, 2014) o Late Correspondence from May 27, 2014 meeting • Project Plans Attachments 1-56 Draft P.C. Resolution (Approval) Attachments 1-57 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 471 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY ADDITION, 1,532 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, 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 the garage, an increase in the rear yard setback from 19'-3" to 33'-8", elimination of balconies along the rear fa9ade of the second story addition, clerestory windows and one (1) standard window along the rear fa9ade 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 created 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, Attachments 1-58 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 heard public testimony and considered the merits of a project with additional revisions; 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 3 (Section 15303) since the project involves construction of an addition to an existing residence on a legally subdivided lot; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a Height Variation to allow the construction of a 1,215 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 attempt to hold an open-house on April 12, 2014 to obtain additional signature. 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." B. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails), which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as City-designated viewing areas. Specifically, due to the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structure is not visible from a public viewing area or viewing site, is not located in the City's Coastal Zone, and will therefore, not impair a view. C. The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 2of10 Attachments 1-59 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 fa9ade, which is the fa9ade 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 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 reasonable minimize view impairment impacts. 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 this property if a similar addition over 16'-0", such as the proposed project, was also constructed on other nearby properties. According the City's Height Variation Guidelines, the assessment did not extend beyond four ( 4) parcels adjacent to the subject property. Based on the existing neighborhood, the four ( 4) closest properties P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 3of10 Attachments 1-60 to the applicant are located at 6315 Villa Rosa, 6309 Villa Rosa, 6303 Villa Rosa and 6329 Villa Rosa. Given the number of design modifications including, but not limited to, reducing the structure height by 2'-1 O'', significantly reducing the second story side fa9ade 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. 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 (3,841 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 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 structure was reduced from 25'-5" to 22'-7", further minimizing the overall bulk and mass of the structure to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the project has been designed 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 fa9ade 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 Planning Commission 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 4of10 Attachments 1-61 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 lien 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. 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 plan and maintain small shrubs in front of the retaining wall at the front of the residence. 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 with 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 property 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 471 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 5 of 10 Attachments 1-62 Section 4: 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, August 27, 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 August 27, 2014. Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064) for the construction of a new 471 square foot first floor addition, 1 ,532 square foot 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 121h day of August 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSSALS: ABSENT: Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director Secretary to the Planning Commission Gordon Leon Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 6 of 10 Attachments 1-63 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2014·00061 (HV, GR, SPR) (Peachtree Family Trust, 6321 Villa Rosa Rd.) General Conditions: 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval 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 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 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 7of10 Attachments 1-64 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 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, 9:00AM 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 7 AM 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 (47.8% proposed). 14. The approved additions shall maintain setbacks as depicted on the APPROVED plans for both the first and second floor additions. BUILDING SETBACK 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 8of10 Attachments 1-65 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 3,841 square-foot, 2-story single-family residence, which includes a 404 square-foot 2-car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION 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 . 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 9of10 Attachments 1-66 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. 25 . 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. 26. (Privacy Mitigation) The windows along the rear fa9ade of the second story shall be installed and maintained as depicted in the APPROVED plans. 27. (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 Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing. P.C. Resolution No. 2014- Page 10of10 Attachments 1-67 Public Correspondence (Since July 8, 2014 P.C. Meeting) Attachments 1-68 RECEIVED Date: August 4, 2014 AUG 4 2014 To: Leza Mikhail Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT From: Kevin Hamilton & Mary Beth Corrado 6309 Villa Rosa Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Dear Ms. Mikhail, After reviewing the revised design plans and observing the re-flagged property, very little has changed in this massive 5 bedroom structure. Therefore, we request that the height variation be denied. Minor changes in overall redesign include: • The height has been reduced by only 12 inches. • The size has been reduced negligibly by 45 sq. ft. We specifically disagree with the Planning Departments finding No. 8 in the July 8, 2014 report that "Staff is able to support the revised project as it relates to neighborhood compatibility, and Height Variation Finding No. 8 can be made". We do agree with the July 8th Planning Commission decision that Neighborhood Compatibility is still an open issue. Details of Neighborhood Compatibility and other issues are provided below . 1. Excessive bulk and mass The redesigned 3,841 sq. ft. structure is more than 1,000 sq. ft. larger than either of the partial two (2) story homes on Villa Rosa (2,331 sq. ft @ 6314 Villa Rosa and 2,787 sq. ft.@ 6332 Villa Rosa). The 3,841 sq. ft. oversized structure is being built on the smallest lot in the 20 nearest homes. The relative size of this 5 bedroom is provided in the Figure 1 Comparison Graph. The redesign is still above 3 sigma in size (sq. ft.) for the homes on Villa Rosa, Rio Linda, Centuria, Monero and Alvarez Drives within the 500' notification area. 2. The architecture is incompatible with the neighborhood The redesign is unlike anything in the neighborhood. There are no homes with similar architecture or style in the entire Los Verdes Hills development. The front Attachments 1-69 remains esthetically the same with the appearance of two balconies, one regular and one faux. 3. The structure is not in "Character" with the original development or with existing homes today. The entire neighborhood is predominated by single story ranch homes. This two (2) story structure is not in character with the neighborhood in both height and number of stories. It should be noted that since proposition M was passed, the numerous home remodels have respected this single story ranch development. The neighborhood has been stable for the last 25 years and to approve this will set a precedent and destabilize the neighborhood. 4. Violation of Privacy The code requirement for a second story sliding window and privacy are in direct conflict. a. Allowing the rear sliding window violates the privacy of neighbors. b. Denying the rear sliding window would not meet code. This is a dichotomy. You can not satisfy both. The suggestion to just plant trees is a temporary and incomplete solution. Trees come and go and ownership changes. There is no effective control of vegetation under the 16 foot by-right height. The only logical solution to this dichotomy is to eliminate the second story. 5. Destruction of views, streetscape & open air space The second story still blocks our view of the ocean, horizon and sky. It is also a direct affront to the open space feeling that is present today from our living room, dining room and patio (Photograph 1 ). Since Villa Rosa is a narrow, curved, inclined street, the second story structure will significantly reduce the open, spacious feeling and streetscape of the neighborhood. The structure dominates the skyline and still dwarfs adjacent homes. See Photograph 2. 6. Additional issues The redesign does not allay the impact of property devaluation associated with this non-conforming property. As previous hearing testimony pointed out, there will be noise pollution associated with this two story structure. Specifically, noise propagation over natural boundaries which are mitigated with a single story ranch home but not with a two story structure. Finally, the revised structure still furthers mansionization creep by setting a precedent, increasing the neighborhood home size average and reduces quality of life by increasing population density. Approving this variance will set a precedent, promote more non-conformity in the neighborhood and destabilize the neighborhood. Attachments 1-70 Home Size Comparison 4,500 - 4,000 3,500 -3,000 +l u. cT !!!. 2,500 - GI N (i) 2,000 GI E 0 1,500 . ::c 1,000 . 500 . 0 Proposed Average Figure 1. Home size comparison for 500' notification homes on Monero, Alvarez, Centuria, Rio Linda and Villa Rosa drives. . ~-- Photograph 1. Dinning room view. Camera: Nikon D5 l 00, Lens: Nikor 18-55, Lens setting: 30mm (35mm camera focal length 45mm), Lens height: 61 inches, Date: 08- 04-14 (#730) Attachments 1-71 Photograph 2. Street view. Camera: Nikon D5100, Lens: Nikor 18-55, Lens setting: 28mm (35mm camera focal length 42mm), Lens height: 68 inches, Date: 07-30-14 (#678) Attachments 1-72 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Julie Owens Rice 6300 Rio Linda Drive Rubyjulie44@aol.com Monday, August 04, 2014 1:12 PM Leza Mikhail 6321 VillaRosa Project Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Dear Ms. Mikhail, I remain opposed to the project/remodel (current plans (revised) for the 6321 Villa Rosa). The plans reflect no real effort on the part of the Trust's representative to incorporate any of the suggestions made by the neighborhood speakers or the planning commissioners on 5-27-14 or 7-08-14 meetings . I read the entire first paragraphs of Measure M for the Commission and the audience ( PFT representatives were in attendance) during my presentation of 7-08-14. Those tenets fell on deaf ears. This will be the third meeting of the Planning Commission regarding this project--8-12-14. It is apparent that the PFT has a complete disregard for the 41+ individuals who initially signed our petition AGAINST this height variation, Measure M itself, neighborhood compatibility, privacy issues, and cumulative view impairment by not making a concerted effort to reduce the footprint of this house forgoing a second story. Reducing the square footage by only 545 sq. feet ( approx ) after two lengthy public meetings is simply not acceptable . Given these circumstances, with respect, I ask the commission to deny the request for a height variation with prejudice . Sincerely, Julie Owens-Rice 6300 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California cc: Planning commissioners 1 Attachments 1-73 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hi Leza, William Sheh <wsheh@tectoweld .com> Tuesday, August 05, 2014 1:19 AM Leza Mikhail Height Variation at 6321 Villa Rosa Microsoft Word -Opposition to 6321.docx.pdf Attached is my continued opinion in opposition to the proposed height variation at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. If the applicant can put the entire addition onto a single story, I would support that effort; even if it needs a variance for slightly exceeding the coverage percentage. Sincerely, William Sheh 1 Attachments 1-74 August 4, 2014 Ms. Leza Mikhail William Sheh 6315 Villa Rosa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Associate Planner, Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 lezam@rpv.com Ms. Mikhail, This letter is a continuation of the concerns I have conveyed in my correspondences of March 18t\ and June 29th, 2014 regarding the proposed height variation at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Over the course of the last few months I do appreciate the effort that the applicant has attempted to shoe horn this huge 2 story addition into the existing neighborhood predominantly full of single story ranch homes. The overwhelming sentiment of the existing residents in the immediate 500ft radius is quite evident in the large number of petitioners (over 40 names) who have lent their signatures and the robust crowd that made it a point to speak out against this variance at the past 2 hearings. Our city has regulations requiring "Neighborhood Compatibility" review for additions greater that the by right height. The residents of the city further strengthened and clarified this requirement by passing Measure Min 1989. At the risk of being repetitive, the current revision of the applicants plans still do not meet Compatibility with this neighborhood. The following are some of the major points I have raised before. 1) Bulk and Mass is out of character with this neighborhood. 2nd Story on the high side of the street makes it much too apparent that it is too big and tall. It completely degrades the streetscape. The middle of Villa Rosa will be bookended by two huge structures on either side of the street. 2) Such a tall structure on one of the smallest lots on the street creates a situation where privacy is easily lost. The invasion of the immediate neighbor's personal light and space is a real nuisance that must not be discounted lightly. 3) After Measure M was passed, there has been no 2 11 ct story additions built in this immediate neighborhood. The trend of Ugly, incompatible and poorly designed home additions were the main impetus behind Measure M. This was to avoid our city becoming a complete mess and blight to the peninsula. 4) The obstruction of existing views from several nearby homes. I would loose a significant amount of light and air if this variance is allowed. 1of3 Attachments 1-75 5) This height variation application must not be approved. It would set and incredible and unfortunate precedent an open a flood gate of other similar applications; thus completely trample one of the basic founding tenants of Rancho Palos Verdes as well as Measure M. I respectfully submit that the Planning Commission deny this height variation application at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive and up hold the regulations of Measure M. Keep RPV open and airy. We do not want to be a hill full of McMansions that have already blighted many cities in the area . I want to further illustrate the points above with a few photos : Cu"em vleiv tram Roof of 6$15 Villa Rosa looking towsrds 6321 VIiia Rosa Proposed Height Variation would significantly raise the structure above the highest point of my house. 2 of3 Attachments 1-76 Loss of light and air is significant with this new structure. Silhouette of proposed variation. Sincerely Yours, William Sheh 3 of3 Attachments 1-77 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: jimksact@aol.com Monday, August 04, 2014 7:21 PM Leza Mikhail Revise plans for Villa Rosa I am writing to you to express my concerns over the height variance for Villa Rosa. I feel that the height still causes blockage of my horizon view. I am also concerned that if this height is approved, future second stories will also be approved and my horizon view is gone. Thank you, Evelyn Kohler 27925 Alvarez Drive RPV 310 377-6090 Sent from AOL Mobile Mail 1 Attachments 1-78 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Ms. Mikhail, Andrew Hsu <a .y.h@me.com> Monday, August 04, 2014 4:46 PM Leza Mikhail Opposition to proposed project at 6321 Villa Rosa Rd. We are the owners of 6314 Rio Linda Dr. We are writing to oppose the revised proposal for 6321 Villa Rosa Rd. The revision still does not adequately address the privacy concerns of nearby residents. The scale of the proposed house is also extraordinarily larger than the neighboring houses and the rest of the neighborhood. While we do not oppose renovations in general, this proposed renovation would contradict the guidelines described in the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook. Thank you, Andrew Hsu and Gayley Louie Sent from my iPhone 1 Attachments 1-79 Carole B Rich 27913 Alvarez Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, c'fo275 RECEIVED AUG 7 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission cc: Leza Mikhail planning department Gentlemen: Page 1of1 ~-'f-!tf I am a long time resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, having purchased my home at 27913 Alvarez Drive in 1985, I oppose the project at 6321 Villa Rosa because it is counter to tenets set forth in measure M ( voters passed this in 1989 )-- 1. This project is not compatibile with the predominant character of one-story California ranch homes on this street. 2 . This project creates a cumulative view impact (homes on Alvarez Drive.) 3. This project intrudes excessively on the privacy of neighboring properties . 4. The plans submitted do not reflect any sort of re-enforcement /remediation to the foundation slab--or existing walls--to permit the walls to bear the weight of a second story AND attic. To approve this project or continue it, opens the door to the Mansionization of our Los Verdes area. I ask the Planning commission to deny with prejudice this application for height variance. Thank you. Sincerely, ['~ 6 . Jf1~ Carole B. Rich Attachments 1-80 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Date : August 1, 2014 Akemichi Yamada <akemichi@verizon.net> Friday, August 01, 2014 9:05 PM Leza Mikhail Comments on the revised remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Comments on revised remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa_August 1.doc To : Honorable Planning Commissioners and Ms. Leza Mikhail From: Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 31 0-544-4525 Re: Case# ZON2014-00064 Dear Ms . Leza Mikhail, We would like to submit the attached comments on the revised remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa . Please include this in the staff report. We would like to extend an open invitation to you and any of commissioners who would like to visit us to assess the remodel from our house. If we are not at home at the time of your visit, please feel free to come into our back yard. Sincerely, Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada 1 Attachments 1-81 To : Planning Commission, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada, 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-544-4525, akemichi@verizon.net Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Subject: Impacts on 6320 Rio Linda Drive from the revised remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Date: August 1, 2014 Dear Honorable Commissioners and Ms. Mikhail, The revised remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, which is abutting our property at 6320 Rio Linda Drive, is still a massive 3,841 sq-ft (including garage) two-story structure on a small 7,015 sq-ft lot. Because the structure is located on the sloped street, the bulk and height are amplified by the topology if viewed from the lower street side. Even though the latest remodel is smaller than the initial super massive 4,404 sq- ft (including garage), the latest two-story structure is still creating problems of neighborhood compatibility, blocking views and infringing on privacy. The specific impact on my property is described below. We would like to have the City to deny the latest remodel plan, and to encourage an alternate design, which is more suitable to the particular lot, such as single-story or split-level. The first floor should be expanded to the maximum extent possible within regulations in order to reduce the need for the second floor, and if a second story is still needed, a split-level should be considered as suggested by some commissioners at the first Hearing on May 27. The topology is very suitable for building a split-level to reduce the overall height significantly if it is dug at the lower side of the street. (1) Infringement of Our Privacy. The revised remodel is still the 2-story design as shown below in Photo 1. There will be 3 windows at the back of the second floor of the remodel, whose sizes are 48"x48", 48"x24", and 36"x24". Anyone looking out of any of these windows will have a full view of our property (the back yard, sun room, dining room, master bedroom and master bath room). On clear days, there will be a great view of the ocean and the Santa Monica Mountain looking over our property. Because of this, the possibility is great that someone is looking out of these windows often, and the probability is great that our privacy is infringed often. We are retired, and are spending tremendous amount of time in our sun room and back yard. The privacy in this area is very important to us. (2) Excessive bulk and mass Page 1 of2 Attachments 1-82 The size of the proposed two-story remodeling is too massive for the neighborhood where the average quare footage is around 2200 (including garage). The 2-story design will disturb the rhyme of the street landscape of the narrow Villa Rosa Street (about 28ft from curb to curb). The 2-story design is too overwbeJming and visually invasive from the down-street-side, and will result in a substantial loss of ' air and llght" for all neighbors. The 2-story design .is not compatible with the neighborhood. For the last two and a half decades (25 yeaTS), the neighborhood has remained stable while undergoing home remodels that respected the neighborhood character. It is essential that future remodeled houses blend amicably among existing houses , and the streetscape is enhanced. (3) Taking away precious views from neighbors Many of us enjoy the setting sun hovering over the horizon. The height above 16 feet will take away views being enjoyed by neighbors. If this type of two-story structure propagates in the neighborhood, more precious views will be taken away. Photo 1, the revised remodel looking from our back yard, 6320 Rio Linda Drive Page 2 of2 Attachments 1-83 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Raymond M Nuber 27919 Alvarez Drive Raymond Nuber <raymond.nuber@cox.net> Saturday, August 02, 2014 10:45 PM Leza Mikhail raymond .nuber@cox.net RE : My continued concerns about the application for a Height Variation, grading , and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Ray Nuber concerns re 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Height Variation request 3 August 2014 .docx Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2 August 2014 ' Ms. Mikhail Associate Planner, Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 lezam@rpv.com Dear Ms. Mikhail: This letter extends my written concerns regarding the application for a Height Variation, grading, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, relative to my letters to you dated 17 May 2014 and 30 June 2014. I understand the applicant has submitted revised plans to the city including reducing the height. Although this again moves the plans in the right direction, below I express my continued concerns that, in summary, the owner's requests still don't honor our city's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits. The only significant change in the design is an approximate one foot reduction in the height, which leaves the eves, not to mention the rest of the roof, higher than the 16 foot "by right" height. Therefore, my recommendation continues to be that the Planning Commission reject this application with prejudice. I'm surprised this applicant hasn't proposed a design that, as suggested by the Planning Commission, either expands only as a single story, as a split-level, or by excavating. Personally, I would support a modification of this design that takes these approaches and remains under the 16 foot "by right" height, even if the result would require approval of a variation to the percentage-of-lot-coverage guidelines. I base the idea of a design that stays below the 16 foot "by right" height on several facts. First, no multi-story remodels have been permitted in our neighbor (defined by upper Monero, Alvarez, Centuria, Rio Linda, and 1 Attachments 1-84 Villa Rosa) since Measure M was ,..,dssed; every multistory home currently on any of our streets were approved before Measure M was passed. In this manner, by the way, our neighbor stands different compared to that of Ella Road. Second, more than 40 signatures have been collected thus far on a petition that objects to building this proposed 2nd story design in our neighborhood. Clearly, as communicated to the Planning Commission both via letters as well as speeches, our neighbor understands the bad precedent that would be set if the Planning Commission were to approve this proposed 2nd story remodel. I see this as a cornerstone characteristic of what defines Neighborhood Compatibility for our neighborhood, which of course is one of the key tenants that motivated for our city's citizens to pass Measure M. Finally, keeping remodels in our neighborhood below the 16 foot "by right" height reasonably constrains both individual as well as cumulative view impairment, another of the key tenets of Measure M. I note a side benefit of constraining the height would be to virtually eliminate the privacy and streetscape issues. In summary, the proposed remodel of this house continues to greatly exceed our neighborhood's scale, bulk, mass, and square footage, exceed the 16 foot "by-right" height, infringe on neighbor privacy, and breaks the rhythm of the street scape. Again, I urge the city to understand that organized opposition is significant and request to stop wasting our city's precious resources to resolve this opposition through protracted due process while this proposal clearly doesn't honor our city's handbooks nor guidelines. I continue to urge our city leadership to respect our city's Proposition M Ordinance and fight McMansionization. I look forward to the opportunity to again publically summarize my opposition verbally during your hearing on 12 August. Sincerely, Raymond M Nuber 2 Attachments 1-85 Robert Pittman & Tomoko Akazawa 6315 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 Ms . Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner Planning Department of City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca . 90275 Re: 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Development 8/1/2014 Our concern of this proposed two story building is the possible future development of two story buildings becoming the norm in this cull de sac neighborhood, if this project was to go forward, possibly setting a standard. I find this outrageous that this issue is still on the table! What is wrong with this Department? This should be a slam dunk on deciding this project is not conducive with the architecture of this neighborhood. We need to enforce the CCR's of RPV to preserve any of our views no matter what the rebuttal. A two story development will set the precedent for future development that not only obstructs what view we have presently but definitely affects the value of properties; benefiting the developed and decrementing the value of surrounding properties. This is not fair to the families on fixed income nor should it be even a possibility. What's going to happen when a very wealthy individual purchases several lots and insists to build a mega-mansion! Allowing this development at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive opens the door to this possibility and destroys any validity to this review committee . The owners have stated that the present structure has minimal space for their extended family. This should have been considered prior to the purchase of the property. Was it a surprise once they closed escrow on the purchase? Really?! If this review board won't call it what it is I will -that's BS! If square footage needs to be extended, then build a basement! Any development to any structure in this neighborhood that impedes into any view or privacy of any property should not be allowed. Sincerely, 'Robert 'Pittman, Tomoko ..'A.kazawa Robert Pittman & Tomoko Akazawa Attachments 1-86 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Ms. Mikhail; Donald Brogdon <donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com> Sunday, August 03, 2014 10:01 PM Leza Mikhail Case N. ZON2014-00064 8-3-14 -Letter to Leza Mikhail.docx Enclosed, please find a letter from Betty and me regarding, Case N. ZON2014-00064; Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review for the house remodel located at 6321 Vitia Rosa, Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275. Thank you Donald and Betty Brogdon 1 Attachments 1-87 Sunday,August3,2014 Ms. LP.za Mikhail Associate Planner, Planning Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275 Donald and Betty Brogdon 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275 RECEIVED AUG 7 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Subject : Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case N. ZON2014-00064) Dear Ms. Mikhail; This letter extends our written concerns regarding the application for a Height Variation, grading, and additions to the house a_t 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, relative to our letters to you dated Sunday, May 18, 2014, and Sunday, July 6, 2014. We understand the applicant has submitted revised plans to the city including reducing the height. Although this again moves the plans in the right direction, below we express our continued concerns that, in summary, the owner's requests still don't honor our city's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits. The only significant change in the design is an approximate one foot reduction in the height, which leaves the eves, not to mention the rest of the roof, higher than the 16 foot "by right" height. Therefore, our recommendation continues to be that the Planning Commission rejects this application with prejudice. We are surprised this applicant has not proposed a design that, as suggested by the Planning Commission, either expands this remodel, only as a single story, or by excavating. Personally, we would support a modification of this design that takes these approaches and remains under the 16 foot "by right" height, even if the result would require approval of a variation to the percentage-of-lot-coverage guidelines. We base the idea of a design that stays below the 16 foot "by right" height on several facts . First, no multi-story remodels have been permitted in our neighbor (defined by upper Monero, Alvarez, Centuria, Rio Linda, and Villa Rosa) since Measure M was passed; every multistory home currently on any of our streets were approved before Measure M was passed. In this manner, our neighbor stands different compared to that of Ella Road. Second, more than 40 signatures have been collected thus far on a petition that objects to building this proposed 2"d story design in our neighborhood. Clearly, as communicated to the Planning Commission both via letters as well as speeches and power point presentations, our neighbors and neighborhood understands the bad precedent that would be set if the Planning Commission were to approve this proposed 2°d story remodel. We see this as a cornerstone characteristic of what defines Neighborhood Compatibility for our neighborhood, which of course is one of the key tenants that motivated for our city's citizens to pass Measure M. Finally, keeping remodels in our neighborhood below the 16 foot "by right" height reasonably constrains both individual as well as cumulative view impairment, another of the key tenets of Measure M. We note a side benefit of constraining the height would be to virtually eliminate the privacy and streetscape issues. Attachments 1-88 In summary, the proposed remodel Qf this house continues to greatly exce ' · 'JUr neighborhood's scale, bulk, mass and square footage, exceed the 1L /ot "by-right" height, infringes on neighuor privacy, and breaks the rhythm of the street landscape. Again, we urge the city to understand that organized opposition is significant and request to stop wasting our city's precious resources to resolve this opposition through protracted due process while this proposal clearly does not honor our city's handbooks or guidelines. We continue to urge our city leadership to respect our city's Proposition M Ordinance and fight McMansionization. Sincerely, IJJ-!5]1.ff fa (N'.-r)l /B!'jj(J Donald and Betty Brogdon Attachments 1-89 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Joel Rojas Monday, August 04, 2014 8:08 AM Leza Mikhail FW: SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2014-00064); PROJECT ADDRESS -6321 VILLA ROSA Oppose_the_Proposed_Project_at_6321_ Villa_Rosa.pdf From: Qi He [mailto:qiheonline@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 7:16 AM To: PlanningCommission Subject: SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2014-00064); PROJECT ADDRESS -6321 VILLA ROSA Dear Planning Commissioners, Attached please find our comments on the proposed project at 6321 Villa Rosa. Many thanks, Richard & Grace 28109 Ella Road 1 Attachments 1-90 Subject: Oppose the Proposed Project at 6321 Villa Rosa Dear Planning Commissioners, We would like to layout the reasons of our opposing the proposed project at 6321 Villa as follows: Our Value As new residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, we really want to share with you that the biggest reason made us finally purchase our current property in Rancho Palos Verdes rather than those in Manhattan Beach is because of the "relatively low density, rural and semi-rural character, and significant open space" here. That is, it is fairly true, as it is described in the City's "Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook'', these valued characteristics make this area "an increasingly desirable place to live." Our Efforts We believe that what make our city so beautiful are not only the magnificent natural views, but also a great deal of efforts we, the residents and city government, have made to preserve our valued neighborhood characteristics. The City 's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook is one of these efforts. I would like to take the chance to thank you, respectable planning commissioners, because you have been playing a significant role to effectively maintain our valued neighborhood characters by ensuring the principles and guidelines in the Handbook are properly respected and followed. The Challenges As you know, bulk and mass, view, and privacy issues are the most important issues, which are clearly addressed in the City 's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook. However, as we looking at the silhouette setup for the project at 632 I Villa Rosa, we can see that it would be a really bulky and massive mansion towering over the one-story ranch style immediate neighboring houses. The numbers in the file are telling us this proposed structure will be obviously overwhelming and disproportionate in size, for this community. Its second story will inevitably create serious privacy concerns for its adjacent neighbors, and block the views of some of its neighbors. Moreover, its style is not consistent with their neighboring structures, which are ranch style houses. All of these issues are seriously challenging the principles and guidelines in the Handbook. Our Choice Now, we are basically facing two options: deny the proposal, or rewrite the City's Compatibility Handbook and then approve it. We would rather choose the first one, because the second one would just make our quiet and peaceful city be another crowed and annoying Manhattan Beach. Bless Our City, Rancho Palos Verdes! Richard & Grace 28109 Ella Road Attachments 1-91 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Ms. Leza Mikhail, Megan Ebenhack <megdf4@aol.com> Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:18 PM Leza Mikhail 6321 villa rosa I am in favor of the remodel of 6321 villa rosa drive. This neighborhood is stagnant and the home prices will always be lower than surrounding neighborhoods, if real remodels are negated. I would like to do a lot with my house. It does not need to be made bigger. I would just like to add more expensive finishes, but what stops me is putting money into a house that's price will never rise to meet the finishes I would like. Those finishes are in houses in surrounding neighborhoods where home prices are higher. People are scared of changing this neighborhood into a mini manhattan beach, well I am all for it. Look how expensive manhattan beach is now. That would not have happened if that would not have gotten rid of all those cute tiny beach houses. I grew up in palos verdes and now live here as a homeowner. I know how desperately this neighborhood needs to change. My friends who have grown up and now live in palos verdes look at this neighborhood as a starting point, not your permanent residence in palos verdes. Let's change that, sincerely Megan Ebenhack Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone 1 Attachments 1-92 P.C. Minutes (July 8, 2014 P.C. Meeting) Attachments 1-93 side of the backyard, he would probably have more success. He appreciated that the proposed wall would be an art wall, however he also understood ther re limitation as to how well that can work . He felt his particular mass is quite si · cant to the northerly neighbor. Chairman Leon stated he could make the findings ack of significance in terms of cumulative and individual view impacts. He b · ed the rear setbacks on the houses in this neighborhood were done as a conscio effort so that you wouldn't look from one house into the next. He commented th ligning the rear faGades of houses is part of neighborhood compatibility, and the ommission expresses that as bulk and mass . He felt that the applicant was very c e to having a successful project, and supported staff's recommendation tog ne more design . Commissioner Eme ser made a friendly amendment to the motion to continue the public hearin ut eliminate the cumulative view impact from the staff . The amendment was accepted by Commissioner Tomblin and ommissioner James. Com · sioner Tomblin's motion to approve staff recommendation, which was to co nue the public hearing to August 12, 2014 but to eliminate the concern with mulative view impairment, was approved. (5-0). 2. Height Variation, Grading, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00064): 6321 Villa Rosa Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining this item was continued from the May 27th meeting . At that meeting staff and the Planning Commission agreed there were privacy impacts and bulk and mass impacts to the neighboring property at 6320 Rio Linda, bulk and mass issues as viewed from the street, and bulk and mass issues from 6309 Villa Rosa Drive. There were also individual and cumulative view impacts as viewed from three houses on Alvarez Dive. She briefly reviewed the original project, comparing it to the currently proposed project. She showed photos of the twenty closest homes, noting the applicant has tried to take the design of the structure and have it fall in line with even the one-story homes in the neighborhood . She showed photos taken from several surrounding properties , noting the reduction in individual view impairment. However, she stated staff was still concerned with cumulative view impairment to the three properties along Alvarez Drive . Chairman Leon opened the public hearing . Sam Hassan (applicant) stated he took the comments from the neighbors , staff, and Planning Commission at the last meeting and significantly modified the project, which is now before the Commission. He felt this new project is much more compatible with the neighborhood, noting he tried to address all of the concerns and took all comments into consideration. He did not agree with staff's assessment that the proposed addition will cause significant cumulative view impairment. He acknowledged there may be some Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2014 Page 10 Attachments 1-94 cumulative view impairment, however he felt it was very minor. He hoped the Commission would see the effort put into the redesign and approve the plan. Sam Glenn stated this is predominately a single-story home community and disagreed with the staff reports opinion that the new structure size and additional second story setbacks are more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated a two- story, 3,886 square foot house sounds much different that a one-story 2,600 square foot house. He agreed with staff's conclusion on cumulative view impact, however he did not think staff went far enough in their evaluation. He felt that this will set a precedence for the neighborhood, as the neighborhood will not accept two-story 3,800 square foot houses. He noted a second story has not been put in this neighborhood for twenty years, and this decision will set a precedence to allow larger two-story homes, which will change the makeup of the neighborhood. Julie Owens Rice (6300 Rio Linda Drive) read from Prop M language regarding hillsides and views and what she felt was the original intent of Prop M. Steve Nash (6334 Rio Linda Drive) stated he was a real estate appraiser for 35 years, so he understands valuation and what goes in to valuation . He explained that he was concerned with the impact of bulk, mass, and privacy to the neighboring residents. Akemichi Yamada (6320 Rio Linda Drive) felt the remodel was based on a self-centered viewpoint to expand living spaces and to gain ocean views while disregarding neighborhood compatibility, infringing on the neighbors' privacy, and taking away views from the neighbors. He felt the revised remodel is still too bulk and massive for the narrow and curving street. He pointed out on a diagram the three proposed windows that are proposed on the second floor at the rear wall, and have a direct view into his property. He stated the loss of privacy was not acceptable. He felt that was the two- story structure is built, modifications can be made at any time, noting the proposed walk in closet could be converted into a sitting room with oceans views by simply installing a window. He felt that a balcony of less than 80 square feet could be added without a compatibility analysis, which will further infringe on his privacy. He did not think trees planted along the property line would be a reliable mans to provide privacy, as the tree owner could cut them down at any time. He reiterated that a two-story design is not compatible with the neighborhood and the square footage should be reduced to be more appropriate to the small lot size. He suggested the first floor should be expanded to the maximum limit in order to reduce the need for the second floor and to reduce the vertical dimensions. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the project as proposed. Commissioner Tomblin referred to the three windows Mr. Yamada discussed on the second floor rear wall, and noted two of them appear to be bathroom windows. He asked Mr. Yamada if he would object if the Commission required these windows be opaque or clouded so that people could not look out of the windows. Planning Commission Minutes July B, 2014 Page 11 Attachments 1-95 Mr. Yamada answered that would help with his privacy issues, as long as they stay that way. He also noted that those windows should not be openable. Kevin Hamilton (6309 Villa Rosa) stated that at the last meeting the Commission inquired about street widths, and he noted that Villa Rosa is eight feet narrower than the other streets. The Commission also asked when the other two-story homes in the neighborhood were permitted. He stated that one home was permitted in 1989, one in 1979, and one in 1967. He opposed the proposed project because he felt the size of the structure is still too large, the style of the structure is not in character with the neighborhood of predominately single-story homes, the structure infringes on the privacy of neighbors, the structure continues to limit the openness of the neighboring properties and the streetscape, and the project promulgates mansionization creep. Marv Beth Corrado (6309 Villa Rosa) stated she has looked at the staff report, the revised plans, and has looked closely at the reflagging, and finds she has to continue to oppose the remodel. Her main concerns are neighborhood compatibility, bulk and mass, and privacy. She did not think the proposed addition complies with the intent of the neighborhood compatibility handbook. She pointed out that this large, out of scale addition is being proposed on the smallest lot on the street, and is not compatible. She was also concerned with parking, road access, and safety. She noted that when cars are parked on both sides of the street there is only room for one car to pass. She stated she continues to oppose the second story addition. William Sheh (6315 Villa Rosa) stated he has lived in many places in his life, but he chose Palos Verdes to raise his family, mainly because of the principal of protecting the semi-rural character of the peninsula. However, once one two-story home is built, it sets a precedence and encourages others to do the same . He noted that on Villa Rosa there are only two two-story homes, both built before the passage of Prop M . He stated that Prop M was passed specifically so that there is no rampant mansionization that has occurred in many other parts of the State. He hoped the Commission would take this into account, noting the proposed addition is completely incompatible with the existing nature and street scape of Villa Rosa drive. Donald Brogdon (6338 Rio Linda) stated the proposed remodel is an infringement on his privacy due to the balconies on the second floor which will allow a direct view into the backyard, master bedroom, master bathroom, living room, and dining room of his home. He did not think trees and hedges would be an adequate means to provide privacy year round. He stated that once the two-story structure is built modifications can be made at any time, noting the walk in closet can be converted into a sitting area by installing windows and balconies . He also noted a balcony less than 80 square feet in size can be added without a compatibility analysis being performed. He pointed out the large home on the other side of his privacy, stating that there is no privacy on this side of his residence. He felt that allowing this two-story addition will make him feel like he's living in a fish bowl as there will be no privacy in the backyard and living quarters. Planning Commission Minutes July 8 , 2014 Page 12 Attachments 1-96 Evelyn Kohler (27925 Alvarez Dr) stated she has views of the ocean and mountains, and was very concerned about the cumulative view impact to this view. She stated she will be losing a portion of her view with this proposed second story addition, and felt that the City should enforce its own regulations to help her save her view. She explained that she has been trying to communicate and work with the applicant, however he did not respond to her until after he had resubmitted his plans to the City. Commissioner Tomblin asked Ms. Kohler what she would like to see modified on the plans. Ms. Kohler responded that the original plan showed the house at 25.5 feet, and the applicant lowered it not even two feet. She did not think this was significant enough for her to think that was a significant change, and felt the second story could be lowered even more. Jim Kohler (27925 Alvarez Dr) stated that the proposed addition infringes upon the view from his property. He was also concerned that, once this project is approved, how many more two story additions will be proposed, and how does the City say no. He stated that the more two-story additions there are , the tougher it gets to say no . He reminded the Commission that this request is an exception to the Code. Vincent Liu (6320 Villa Rosa Dr) stated he and his family oppose the redesigned project. He stated his opposition is with the bulk and mass, neighborhood compatibility, the loss of views, privacy, the streetscape, and the noise. He pointed out that with so many neighbors in attendance at this meeting that it proves this is a community issue . Carl Muchnick (6307 Rio Linda Dr) was concerned with privacy issues, views, and loss of open space . He felt the biggest issue was the possible precedence this would set to allow more and larger two-story homes in the neighborhood. Ray Nuber (27919 Alvarez Dr) reiterated the concerns he detailed in his two letters previously submitted to the City, which included view impairment. He recognized the revised plans reduce the square footage, balconies, and height however he did not think the plans honor the neighborhood compatibility handbook guidelines. Specifically, he felt the revised plans continue to result in a scale and bulk and mass that is not similar to the surrounding residences, the proposed addition exceeds the 16-foot by-right structure height, it infringes on neighbors' privacy rights, it is not compatible with the vast majority of other homes, it does not provide open space between the surrounding residences in the area's style, it is not compatible with the neighborhood's character which is dominated by a vast tract of single-story ranch homes averaging less than 1,800 square feet. He stated the plan still greatly exceeds the height, bulk, and mass of the homes in the neighborhood, and does not enhance the streetscape. He asked the Commission to deny the project. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Nuber if he felt his property would be affected by a cumulative view impact. Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2014 Page 13 Attachments 1-97 Mr. Nuber showed several photos taken from his backyard where he simulated the view if several two-story homes were allowed to be built. He felt this would be taking the value of his ocean views and giving it to the neighbors. David Hoenisch (6343 Rio Linda Dr) stated he feels badly for the neighbors who may be losing their views and their privacy. He agreed with others that once this addition is allowed many more will follow. Sam Hassan (in rebuttal) stated he has done everything that has been asked of him in terms of use, height, and privacy. He stated he will plant privacy trees for his neighbor to the north. He did not know what else he could do to appease the neighbors and get the addition he felt he needed. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing . Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if they could estimate the height and dimension of the residence if the roof line were lowered a bit more. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that, based on the topography, it would no longer be a second story. For the purposes of discussion, Commissioner Tomblin moved staff's recommendation, seconded by Chairman Leon. Chairman Leon offered a friendly amendment to include a concern with neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Tomblin accepted the friendly amendment. Chairman Leon felt this was a case where the neighborhood really wants to stay as single-story ranch houses. Permits in 1989, 1979, and 1967 for two-story residences doesn't really change the fact that this neighborhood is relatively unanimous in wanting to have smaller houses. He noted there is a house at the end of Villa Rosa which is a single-story, 3000 square foot plus home. Therefore, he felt a larger home could be built and still be compatible with the neighborhood. He felt this was a case where neighborhoods get to vote. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he was ambivalent, and saw pros and cons to this application. He felt the pros were that the applicant has made a good-faith effort to recalculate and redesign the size of the building. He also felt that by doing so, much of the bulk and mass had been addressed. The other pro to him was that three of the closest eight homes are already two-story homes. However the cons are very clear, and perhaps clearer. He noted this is the smallest lot and the house would be the second largest in the neighborhood. He felt this was the type of application that a floor area ratio calculation would be quite helpful. He also noted there was very strong neighborhood opposition to the project. Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2014 Page 14 Attachments 1-98 Commissioner Gerstner stated that if the Commission feels that cumulative view impairment applies here, and based on staff's statement that by lowering the roofline the structure would no longer be a second story, then any second story will lead to significant view impairment which will lead to cumulative view impairment. That is effectively saying this applicant cannot put on any second story addition. He felt that if that is what the Commission is trying to say, then they need to come out and say that. He did not want to tell the applicant to redesign the house with a second story and then come back and have this very same discussion. Commissioner James agreed. He felt that the notion of continuing the public hearing again and returning with a redesigned second story that may be just a bit smaller may not be something the Commission can approve. He questioned if the applicant is going to be willing to make some rather big changes to his design. Commissioner Tomblin stated he is torn, noting the actual design of the addition is quite beautiful. However, he recalled that a previous project had similar problems but the applicant was able to design a project that was approved. He stated that there is always the option, if the Commission ultimately denies the project, for the applicant to take his project to the City Council for review. However, he felt that the Commission needed to give the applicant some type of guidance. Chairman Leon asked staff if it may be a better path for the applicant, if the Commission were to deny this project without prejudice and the applicant appealed the decision to the City Council, rather than continuing the public hearing and trying to find a design that will satisfy the neighbors. Director Rojas felt that it depended on the applicant's intent. If the applicant's position is this the most he can do, then maybe it would be best to deny the project without prejudice and let the applicant appeal the decision to the City Council. However, if the applicant is open to further redesign then the City Council may just remand the project back to the Planning Commission to review the redesign. Chairman Leon felt the current application is a much improved two-story home, and the applicant has gone a long way to address many of the Planning Commission's concerns, save the fact that the neighborhood has an image of a single-story small ranch style house. What is being proposed is not a single story. He opened the public hearing to ask the applicant if he wanted to pursue the re-design path, in which case the Planning Commission may continue the public hearing, or whether he would prefer to pursue an appeal to the City Council. Mr. Hassan noted that at the last meeting there was a lot of discussion on reducing the size and the mass of the house, and there. was no discussion on limiting the structure to a single story. Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2014 Page 15 Attachments 1-99 Chairman Leon recalled at the last meeting that Commissioner Gerstner discussed looking into a split level, and his own thoughts that he was not sure the applicant could meet the massing with a second story. Mr. Hassan asked for clarification on what the Planning Commission would want to see in a redesign, a reduced size, a reduced footprint, or a reduced height. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the applicant has done a lot with the structure, but wasn't sure there was any place to squeeze in the structure any more than has already been done. Mr. Hassan responded that there is still room to squeeze in the structure . Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Hassan how much more he felt he could come down in height. He noted that one of the issues before the Commission is view impact, and asked what the maximum amount Mr. Hassan felt he could reduce the structure was so that the Commission could decide if they thought that would get it below what they felt was the level for potential cumulative view impact. The second issue is the bulk and mass, noting that some of the Commissioners may have to go through the thought process of whether or not there is any two-story house that can be built in this neighborhood that would be compatible. However, he noted that because there are three other two-story homes in the neighborhood, he felt it would be difficult to say there is none. He stated he is generally not a fan of two-story homes in single-story neighborhoods, however in this particular neighborhood situations have been created that make it difficult to say a two-story home absolutely could not be built. If the applicant felt there was room to bring the height down even further, he would suggest he do so to the point where he can't go any further and let the Commission evaluate that. He noted that it appeared right now that the Commission was ready to deny the current project unless the applicant tells the Commission he can do something more. He asked Mr. Hassan if he felt he could do something more to this design to help reduce the mass and reduce the potential for cumulative view impact. Mr. Hassan stated that the difference between him and the house to the east is only a maximum of two feet four inches in height. Commissioner Gerstner stated that it would be a difficult case to make that his proposed two-story house is no higher in elevation from sea level than the adjacent single story house. He reiterated that to have a chance of the Commission not denying this application he has to squeeze as much as he can out of the design and let the Commission have another look at it. Mr. Hassan stated that he understood. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing . Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2014 Page 16 Attachments 1-100 Commissioner Tomblin noted that in the past the Commission has taken a straw poll amongst the Commissioners, and one of the questions he had was if the Commission would support a revised second story addition. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he would not have guessed that the applicant could have done that much, made that much difference, and not lose significant square footage. Therefore it was difficult for him to say that he could not support a second story addition no matter what. He has seen a tremendous amount of progress and felt he had to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. He realized this was difficult for the neighbors to hear, however he felt that if this were their house the Commission was looking at they would want to have every reasonable opportunity to do whatever they could to satisfy the neighbors as well as themselves. Therefore, given the progress made and given that the applicant is amenable to it, he was willing to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant the opportunity to adjust the project. With that, however, he was not saying he would then be able to approve the project. Commissioner Tomblin agreed that the new design is vastly improved, and supported Commissioner Gerstner's comments. Chairman Leon also stated he was willing to allow the applicant the opportunity to try to revise the plans and he will have an open mind about it. The motion to continue the public hearing to August 12, 2014 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address cumulative view impairment and neighborhood compatibility issues was approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser abstaining. Commissioner Emenhiser explained he abstained from the vote because he felt there are a number of problems with this project, but did not think cumulative view impairment is one of them. PUBLIC HEARINGS Noting that it was after 11 :00 p.m. and per the Planning Commission rules, Commissioner Gerstner moved to hear the remaining items, but to limit the discussion to no more than 30 minutes, seconded by Commissioner James. Approved without objection. 3. CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2014-00163): stern Avenue Commissioner Emenhiser recused hims remainder of meeting . Director Rojas present e staff report, explaining AT&T is requesting permission to change the existin tennas on the subject building. He noted the antennas will be Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2014 Page 17 Attachments 1-101 P.C. Staff Report (July 8, 2014 P.C. Meeting) • Late Correspondence from July 8, 2014 P.C. Mtg. • Public Correspondence since May 27, 2014 P.C. Mtgs. Attachments 1-102 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: RANCHO PALOS VERDES CHAIRMAN AND MEMBE S OF T JOEL ROJAS -COMMUNITY JULY 8, 2014 NNING COMMISSION HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. 2014-00064); PROJECT ADDRESS -6321 VILLA ROSA (LANDOWNER -PEACHT FAMILY TRUST) Staff Coordinator: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planne ~ RECOMMENDATION Receive testimony from the public and applicant and continue the public hearing to August 12, 2014 to allow the applicant time to further redesign the project to address Staff's continuing concerns with the proposed project's impacts to cumulative view impairment. BACKGROUND On February 10, 2014, the applicant submitted Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review applications to the Community Development Department for review and processing. The applicant requested approval to construct a 516 square foot first floor addition, 2,098 square foot second story addition, second story balconies at the front and rear of the property, and a 3'-1 O" tall retaining wall with associated grading to accommodate the proposed additions. On May 27, 2014, the applications for the new two-story addition were heard by the Planning Commission. At that time, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue the proposed project to allow the applicant additional time to redesign the project to address Staff's identified impacts related to privacy, neighborhood compatibility and view impairment. As noted in the May 27, 2014 P.C. Staff Report (attached), Staff's identified impacts included direct privacy and bulk and mass impacts to the neighboring property at 6320 Rio Linda Dr., bulk and mass impacts as seen from the street and 6309 Villa Rosa, and individual and cumulative view impairment impacts as seen from 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Drive. At the meeting, the Planning Commission heard testimony from a number of neighbors regarding these same issues of concern. As noted in the Minutes of the May 27, 2014 P.C. meeting (attached), the Planning Commission agreed with Staff's identified impacts. Additionally, some Commissioners requested that the applicant consider a split-level design or a significantly reduced second-story footprint, and a majority of the Attachments 1-103 P. C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2014-00064) July 8, 2014 Page 2 Planning Commission noted that the rear yard balconies should be removed to eliminate privacy, and bulk and mass concerns. After hearing the public testimony and discussing the merits of the proposed project, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 8, 2014 to allow the Applicant time to modify the design of the project to address concerns related to view impairment, bulk and mass, and privacy impacts. The item is now back before the Planning Commission for its continued consideration. DISCUSSION As noted in the Background section, the Planning Commission agreed with Staff and raised concerns with the overall compatibility of the structure as seen from the street, bulk and mass impacts as seen from the dining room of 6309 Villa Rosa, privacy and bulk/mass impacts as seen from 6320 Rio Linda, and view impairment impacts as seen from 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. In response to the Planning Commission's concerns, the applicant has provided design modifications including a reduction in the overall height of the structure, increased second story setbacks, reduced second floor footprint, and reduction of privacy impacts. These modifications, as they relate to view impairment, neighborhood compatibility and privacy impacts, are discussed below. View Impairment The three Height Variation findings related to view impairment (Height Variation Finding Nos. 4, 5 and 6) are listed below, with Staff's analysis of the revised project following: 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(8) 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. The previous project included a second story addition that reached a height of 25'-5". The Planning Commission agreed with Staff's analysis and concluded that the original Attachments 1-104 P. C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2014-00064) July 8, 2014 Page 3 proposed project created significant cumulative impacts as seen from the viewing area of 27919 Alvarez Dr., and individual and cumulative view impairment impacts from the properties located at 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. These properties are located approximately 15-20 feet higher in elevation than the subject property and have views of the Pacific Ocean as seen from their respective primary viewing areas (living rooms), above the rooftops of the homes along Villa Rosa and Rio Linda. In an effort to address the individual and cumulative view impairment impacts described in Height Variation Finding Nos . 4, 5, and 6 of the May 27, 2014 Staff Report , the applicant reduced the overall height of the structure from 25'-5" to 23'-7", resulting in a 1 '-1 O" reduction in structure height. This modification was accomplished by reducing the roof pitch from a 4:12 to 2.5:12 pitch. In addition to reducing the height of the structure, the applicant also eliminated the second story addition over the garage and a portion of the two-story addition at the rear of the property (including two-story balconies). The elimination of a portion of the two-story addition and balconies in the rear yard also increased the second story rear yard setback from 19' -3" to 33' -8". With regard to individual view impairment impacts, Staff previously found significant view impacts as seen from 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr., but not 27919 Alvarez Dr. Staff was able to assess the revised project silhouette as seen from 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr., however given that the revised silhouette was recently constructed, Staff was unable to view the revised silhouette on a clear day. Nonetheless, Staff was able to utilize previous photographs taken when the Pacific Ocean and horizon line were visible to asses the potential reduction in view impairment impacts. Based on this assessment, the overall reduction in structure height by 1 '-1 O" does not provide a discernable increase in ocean view or views of the horizo_n line above the proposed ridge line, as seen from viewing areas of 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. However, the significant reduction of the second story side fa9ade, which is the fa9ade seen from the properties along Alvarez Drive, preserves a majority of the Pacific Ocean view. By eliminating the second-story addition over the garage and second-story additions (and balconies) at the rear of the property, a large portion of the second story footprint that was impairing Pacific Ocean views was eliminated. Although the revised project continues to impair a view of the Pacific Ocean from these two properties, Staff believes that the impairment is now considered less than significant as a majority of the band of ocean view is maintained . As such , the redesigned project would comply with Finding No. 4. Additionally, given the reduction in structure height and significant reduction in building footprint as seen from the side elevation, Staff now believes that the applicant has redesigned the project in such a manner as to reasonably minimize view impairment impacts, thus also complying with Finding No . 5. While Staff is of the opinion that the reduction in the second floor footprint provides a design that reasonably minimizes the view impairment and decreases the individual view impairment impact to a less than significant degree (Height Variation Finding Nos. 4 and 5), Staff believes that the cumulative view impact (Height Variation Finding No . 6), while reduced, still creates a significant impairment to the residences at 27925 and 27931 Attachments 1-105 P. C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2014-00064) July 8, 2014 Page4 Alvarez Dr. As discussed in the May 27, 2014 P.C. Staff Report, although Staff did not find an individual view impact to the property located at 27919 Alvarez Dr., Staff did find that a cumulative impact was observed from this property. The four (4) properties that were used as the basis for the "cumulative view analysis," and which are in the view frame of 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr., are: 6315 Villa Rosa, 6309 Villa Rosa, 6303 Villa Rosa and 6329 Rio Linda. Although Staff believes that the revised design maintains much more ocean view from the viewing areas of these three lots, after considering additions that are similar in design to the revised project at the four other. properties, the narrow band of Pacific Ocean would continue to be significantly impaired by eliminating portions of the horizon line and ocean views. Similar to the previous cumulative analysis prepared for this address, a potential addition at 6320 Rio Linda would be located near the center of the view frame of the three properties along Alvarez and would continue to create a significant cumulative view impairment impact by eliminating a substantial amount of the existing ocean views. As such, although Staff is able to make Finding Nos. 4 and 5 for the revised project, Staff is not able to make Finding No. 6, as the revised project and similarly constructed projects on adjacent homes would continue to create a cumulative view impairment. Neighborhood Compatibility The Height Variation finding related to neighborhood compatibility (Height Variation Finding No. 8) is listed below, with Staff's analysis of the revised project following: 8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. As addressed in the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report, Staff noted that the original project provided some articulation, but that the overall project created bulk and mass impacts as seen from the street, 6309 Villa Rosa, and 6302 Rio Linda. The applicant has redesigned the proposed project by reducing the overall square footage and footprint of the second floor, and providing additional second-story setbacks to soften the appearance of the structure as seen from the street and neighboring properties. These revisions are in addition to the slightly reduced structure height described in the view analysis above. More specifically, the applicant has reduced the proposed square footage from 4,452 square feet to 3,886 square feet, resulting in a net decrease of 566 square feet. To achieve the reduced square footage, the applicant has eliminated portions of the second floor addition, including eliminating the addition over the garage and eliminating a portion of the second story addition and balconies at the rear of the property. The elimination of these areas have significantly reduced the bulk and mass impacts as seen from the street. Additionally, by eliminating portions of the second story footprint and balconies at the rear of the property, the applicant has increased the rear yard setback from 19'-3" to 33'-8". Furthermore, the applicant has also provided a 4'-4" second story setback along the south Attachments 1-106 P. C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2014-00064) July 8, 2014 Page 5 side of the residence and 2'-0" second story setback along the north side of the residence. Staff is of the opinion that the reduced structure size and additional second story setbacks provide a design that is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as seen from the street and neighboring properties. The increase in the rear yard setback and elimination of balconies in the rear yard have also reduced the bulk and mass impacts of the new second floor addition to a less than significant level as seen from 6309 Villa Rosa and 6320 Rio Linda. As such, Staff is able to support the revised project as it relates to neighborhood compatibility, and Height Variation Finding No. 8 can be made. Privacy Impacts The Height Variation finding related to privacy impacts (Height Variation Finding No. 9) is listed below, with Staff's analysis of the revised project following: 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. In response to concerns expressed by Staff and the Planning Commission regarding Height Variation Finding No . 8, which requires that the proposed project not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of abutting residences, the applicant has redesigned the project to mitigate privacy impacts . In the May 27, 2014 P.C. Staff Report, concerns were relayed by Staff with regard to privacy impacts created from the two (2) previously proposed balconies located at the rear of the residence, facing the neighboring property located at 6320 Rio Linda Dr. 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. Additionally, the applicant has only provided one standard window along the rear fa9ade, with the remaining windows proposed as clerestory windows. Given the increased rear yard setback and revised window designs, Staff is of the opinion that the revised project would not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy to the neighboring property located at 6320 Rio Linda. As such, Staff is able to support the revised project as it relates to privacy, and Finding No. 9 of the Height Variation findings can be made. Staff has relayed these concerns to the applicant. In response, the applicant notified Staff (see attached email) that the property owner intends to further revise the project to address Staff's and the neighbors' continued concerns with the project. As such, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission receive testimony from the public and applicant , and continue the public hearing to August 12, 2014 . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Attachments 1-107 P. C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2014-00064) July 8, 2014 Page6 Permit Streamlining Act The original decision deadline for the proposed project was June 20, 2014. The property owner verbally agreed to a 90-day extension at the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, making the new decision deadline September 18, 2014. Public Correspondence Staff has received a number of new correspondence letters received since the last meeting on May 27, 2014. While some letters note support for the redesigned project, other letters continue to note concerns with compatibility and view impairment impacts. These new letters, along with previously received comment letters, are attached to this Staff Report. Ownership At the May 27, 2014 public hearing, the Planning Commission raised a question brought forward by the public regarding the legal ownership of the property and the rights of the applicant to process the proposed project. As a result of the Planning Commission's direction, the applicant brought legal documentation to the City for the City Attorney to review in person. After reviewing the documentation, the City Attorney concurred that the applicant is a legal representative of the trust, Peachtree Family Trust, and is permitted to process the applications before the Planning Commission. CONCLUSION Based on the original project analysis presented in the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report (attached) together with the revised project presented by the Applicant, Staff concludes that the proposed two-story project will continue to create significant cumulative view impairment impacts as seen from the viewing area of 27919, 27925, and 27931 Alvarez Dr. As such, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission receive testimony from the public and applicant, and continue the project to August 12, to allow the applicant time to redesign the project to meet the concerns of Staff and neighbors~ ALTERNATIVES The following alternative is available for the Planning Commission to consider: 1) Deny, without prejudice, the Height Variation and Site Plan Review by adopting the attached resolution of denial. 2) Approve the revised project as proposed and direct Staff to return to the following meeting with the appropriate resolution of approval. Attachments 1-108 P. C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2014-00064) July 8, 2014 Page 7 Attachments: • Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ (Denial without Prejudice) • P.C. Minutes of the May 27, 2014 Meeting • Public Correspondence since May 27, 2014 P.C. meeting • P.C. Staff Report (May 27, 2014) o Late Correspondence from May 27, 2014 meeting • Project Plans Attachments 1-109 Late Correspondence (July 8, 2014 Meeting) Attachments 1-110 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Ms. Mikhail: cjspud@verizon.net Tuesday, July 08, 2014 2:17 PM Leza Mikhail Case #ZON2014-00064 My name is Suzy McNall and I am the homeowner of 6422 Rio Linda Drive, RPV. I am in protest of the homeowner, Mr. Hassan, of 6321 Villa Rosa in expanding their home. I have lived in this area for many years and love the rural look of Rancho Palos Verdes. The excessive height and expansion of the subject home would not fit in the RPV area and will stand out like a sore thumb. These homes are built in the California ranch style one-story homes. Ahuge mansion style in the way of bulk and mass belongs in Palos Verdes Estates -not Rancho Palos Verdes. Plus the fact of increasing the square footage of the subject home to approx. 4,452 square feet is excessive in size and does not fit in the house character of RPV and willwould disrupt the community and theway of home style. The average home size is approx. 2,000 and to have a house size double would be ludicrous and excessive with the current neighborhood.Also I do not wish to have any of my backyard privacy invaded and to hear the continuous construction noisewould not be acceptable not only to me but my neighbors. Suzy McNall 1 Attachments 1-111 Leza Mikhail From: ent: To: Subject: Dear Ms . Mikhail , Vincent Liu <vince88168@gma i l.com> Monday, July 07, 2014 2:53 PM Leza Mikhail Opposition ot the redesign at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. As residents of the Villa Rosa Drive, we are writing this letter to oppose the redesign the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. Our opposition of the redesign is based on the concerns of the height variation as listed below: 1. Bulk & Mass The total footage of the redesign is still close to 3,900 square feet on a lot of 7 ,300 square feet. The average footage on this street should be in the low to mid 2,000 square feet. 2. Neighborhood Compatibility The redesign of the second floor still would create a huge structure that is not compatible with our neighborhood which consists mostly of single-story ranch-style houses. 3. Views The redesign of the second floor still would block views of ocean & sky of our ne ighborhood, and it would impact the property values of those houses . 4 . Privacy The redesign of the second floor still would infringe on the privacy of some of our neighbors , and and it would also devalue their houses . 5. Streetscapes The redesign of the huge structure still breaks our streetscapes in the neighborhood . 6. Noise The redesign of the second floor with sliding windows & balconies would still leave the problems of noise propagation unsolved . We would like to thank the Planning Commission for their kind consideration of our concerns, and we truly hope the Planning Commission can deny the redesign and push for a more significant modification . Best Regards, Vincent & Wendy Liu 6320 Villa Rosa Drive . 1 Attachments 1-112 "·-'·Leza Mikhail Associate Planner, Planning Department , City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd .. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275 Donald and Betty Brogdon 6328 Rio Linda Drive. Rancho Palos Verdes. CA. 90275 RECEIVED JUL. 7 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELO PMENT 0 Sunday, July 6, 2014 EPARTME NT Subiect: Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case N. ZON2014-00064) Dear Ms. Mikhail; Bettv and 1 would again like to thank the Planning Commission's recommendation from the Mav 27' 2014 meeting to allow the applicant at 6321 Via Rosa Drive time to redesign their project that impacts individual and neighborhood privacy, as well as view impairment identified bv Planning Department Staff and our surrounding neighbors. After viewing the revised flag silhouette from our property and other locations we believe this project still fails to meet the neighborhood compatibilitv and privacy issues. From the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, Design Tips , Section II, Architectural Styles and Materials, Item F, Apparent Bulk and Mass, page 28, paragraph 1 states "The bulk and mass of a new residence or an "addition to an existing residence should be similar to nelghborlng structures, not overwhelming or disproportionate In size." ·, .. ~revised design still raises privacy issues for those of us flving within the 100 foot radius in the south east facing direction of the house located at 6321 Via Rosa Drive. In 1962 the developer's original design thoughtfully created a terraced hill plan in our Rancho Palos Verdes, communitv which would offer homeowners "privacy and views" protecting our priceless resources; "Our Homes". From the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, Design · Tips, Section II, Architectural Styles and Materials, item B, Height of Structures. page 25 . paragraph 7, states, "The height of a structure should not result In a significant loss or infringement of privacy on a neighboring property." In addition the house at 6321 Via Rosa Drive as currently designed, the second storv windows look out on our backyard, our living room, dining room, master bedroom and master bathroom. We will have noise pollution coming from the second story; blaring down on us from above. The trees and foliage in our yard are not a sufficient means to protect our privacy; it is porous and only gives us partial protection seasonally and they do not offer a permanent solution to guard against the Joss of our privacy. If approved, this two story remodel will signfficantlv and dramatically change our neighborhood compatibilitv permanently. Developers will see we are a targeted city for two story Mansionazations. We were looking for a single story "Ranch Style Home" in Rancho Palos Verdes for a long time. After three years of looking we finally found our current home. It offers privacy, solitude, and comfort. We do not want to lose what it took us so long to find and never get it back. Thank you. /fla1vr--e tfJ ~fu}0 &~j fn~ty:llJh_) Donald and Bettv Brogdon Q U Attachments 1-113 Leza Mikhail From: ~'!nt: .o: Kevin < kevin@c2services.com> Thursday, July 03, 2014 4:13 PM PlanningCommission Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Visitation to 6309 Villa Rosa Re: Height variation 2014-00064, 6321 Villa Rosa Dear Commissioners, Per our June 29, 2014 letter, we extend our open invitation to visit or revisit our home. If you could give us some advanced notice, it would be appreciated so that we can arrange to be home. For your convenience, our contact information is listed below. Kevin Hamilton & Mary Beth Corrado 6309 Villa Rosa Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Cell phone (310) 560-63 83 1 Attachments 1-114 Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2014- (July 8, 2014 Meeting) Attachments 1-115 P .C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- 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 ASSOICATED RETAINING WALL AND EXCAVATION, 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 to the Community Development Department requesting approval of a one and two-story addition, and a 3'-1 O" tall retaining wall with 52.97 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the new addition to an existing single- family residence; 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 addition 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 ZON2014-00064 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (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 public and the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on July 8, 2014, the Planning Commission heard public testimony and considered the merits of the a revised project submitted by the applicant; and, P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 1 of 3 Attachments 1-116 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 creates significant cumulative view impairment impacts. Cumulative view impairment impacts are 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. Three (3) properties that were found to have cumulative view impacts were 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. These properties are located approximately 15-20 feet higher in elevation than the subject property and have views of the Pacific Ocean as seen from their respective primary viewing areas (living rooms), above the rooftops of the homes along Villa Rosa and Rio Linda. Although the applicant reduced the overall height of the structure from 25'-5" to 23'-7", resulting in a 1'-10" reduction in structure height, the cumulative view impacts continued to be significant. The four (4) properties that were used to conduct the "cumulative analysis," and which are in the view frame of 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr., are: 6315 Villa Rosa, 6309 Villa Rosa, 6303 Villa Rosa and 6329 Rio Linda. Although the revised design, when considered on its own, maintains much more ocean view from the viewing areas of these three lots, after considering additions that are similar in design to the revised project at the four other properties, the narrow band of Pacific Ocean would continue to be significantly impaired by eliminating portions of the horizon line and ocean views. A potential addition at 6320 Rio Linda would be located near the center of the view frame of the three properties along Alvarez and would continue to create a cumulative view impairment impact by eliminating a significant amount of the existing ocean views . As such, the revised project and similarly constructed projects on adjacent homes would continue to create a cumulative view impairment. Section 2: 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, July 23, 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 July 23, 2014. Section 3: 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 2 of 3 Attachments 1-117 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ath day of July 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: RECUSALS: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission Gordon Leon Chairman P.C . Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 3 of 3 Attachments 1-118 Public Correspondence (since May 27, 2014 P.C. Meeting) Attachments 1-119 June 4, 2014 Ms. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner Planning Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RECEIVED JUN 0 5 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAFITMENT Subject: Additional Material, Rebuttal to Comments Provided by Sam Hassan at Hearing on May 27, 2014 in reference to agenda item 3; Height Variation, CASE #ZON2014- 00064, 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Dear Ms. Leza Mikhail, I have found additional materials supporting my position rebutting the Sam Hassan's untruthful and shockingly appalling statements made at the May 27 Hearing. I would like to have this letter be shown to the Commissioners. Fact #1: Attachment # 1 is the copy of the e-mail sent from Akemichi Yamada to the Building & Safety Department of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, dated January 25, 2014. This is the day when I met Sam Hassan for the first time. The e-mail clearly states that the trees in his property were being cut down already on this day. The picture attached to the e-mail shows the tree at left whose branches were already cut off. This proves that Akemichi Yamada (a.k.a. Joe) did not request to cut trees down on his property. Fact #2: Attachment #2 is Slide 10 of the Staff Presentation at the May 27 Hearing. The photos on this slide were taken on May 19 (or 20) by Ms. Leza Mikhail. The photo shows the tree at the West side of my property is still standing tall providing privacy for 6328 Rio Linda. This is the tree that Sam Hassan claims that I trimmed the tree to compromise the privacy. This proves that Sam Hassan's statement is deceptive. Sincerely, 4 ~ /f/~/-- Akemichi tl~ada 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-4525, Akemichi@verizon.net Attachment #1: E-mail dated January 25, 2014, from "Akemichi Yamada" to buildingsafety@rpv.com. Attachment #2: Slide 10, Staff Presentation, May 27 Hearing 1 Attachments 1-120 l}!/IJ(f//J1$NT #-I Akemichi Yamada From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: Dear Sirs, "Akemichi Yamada" <akemichi@verizon.net> <buildingsafety@rpv.com> Saturday, January 25, 2014 4:42 PM 2014 Jan BkYd OOS_EMail.jpg New neighbor is remodeling a single story house into a two-story house, Is this permitted? My name is Akemichi Yamada residing at 6320 Rio Linda Dr. The house behind us at 6321 Via Rosa just has been sold to a new owner. I just learned today that he is planning to remodel the single story house into a two-story house. Unfortunately, he is going to add two balconies on the second floor facing toward our house. Balconies would be looking down into our back yard, our sun room, living room and our bedroom. Page 1 of2 (I am enclosing the photo taken today from my house toward the back-neighbor. Presently only their roof is visible. In the future, we will be seeing two balconies above the current roof-line. The trees between our house and their house are being cut down by the new neighbor.) This new floor plan, if implemented, would completely destroy our privacy. This would lower the property value of my house. I thought there is a moratorium on building two-story structure in our neighborhood . Please clarify as to what is permitted or not permitted under the city ordinances, regulations, building codes, or whatever. How can I stop this upcoming invasion of our privacy (and lowering of my property value)? Sincerely, Akemichi Yamada 6/3/2014 Attachments 1-121 Attachments 1-122 !f rr fJ ctt IY/ F-AJT # 2- 1 mp acts from 6328 Rio Linda Staff did not find a privacy impact from the rear yard of 6328 Rio Linda due to existing foliage on the property HV/GR/SPR ZON2014-00064 Attachments 1-123 Subj: Date: From: To: meeting 5-29-14 planning commission 5130f.l014 3:59:05 P.M. Pacific Daylight lime RUBY JULIE@msn.com RUBY JULIE44@AOL.COM Members of the Planning Commission: Gordon Leon, CHAIR, Robert A.Nelson, VICE CHAIR Page 1of1 RECEIVED JUN 0 2 2014 COMMUNITV DEVELOPMEN1 DEPARTMENT Members: John Cruikshank, Dave Emenhiser, Bill Gerstner, William J. James, David Tomblin Gentlemen: I would like to thank you for allowing all the speakers to address you on 5-29-14. As a 30 year+ resident of RPV, I too, understand the American Dream of owning as well as //ving in a home in this community. I was seriously perturbed by three things which occurred during that meeting and I would like to share these concerns with you individually. 1. Mr. Hassan was obviously under extreme emotional pressure but I was appalled at the times he began ranting about his neighbors. Those neighbors were present in the room, but according to the protocols, were unable to agree with or dispute what Mr. Hassan said. Because the meeting is available for viewing online, silence might mean agreement to the cyberspace audience. In future, I would like to see some one of the planning commission, probably the chair lay out some ground rules to the audience---or at least refresh them on the need for courtesy and respect-- not the "he said--she said" invective which surfaced that evening. 2. The power point projector should have been checked in advance to assure All THE BULBS were working before the meeting ! Not to adequately see the photographs by the " opposed " presenters, or Mr. Hassan's --if he had a presentation---is just unprofessional. period. 3. When asked by a commissioner, Mr. Hassan replied that he was the owner of the trust which owns the house. He further stated that he had given proof to staff. Staff agreed. I want to know why these documents were not in the staff report somewhere or at least on 'file for viewing. Los Angeles county considers " M. Garcia "as owner of that trust, re: house. To help clarify this matter I have provided each of you with a copy of that trust/title deed. My question at the meeting was " WHO ARE YOU (Peachtree Family Trust " ? ) The ownership of 6321 Villa Rosa Drive remains at odds with what Mr. Hassan SAYS and the legal record of Los Angeles County. Clarification at the next meeting ( legal record in writing ) is imperative if the element of integrity is to be maintained between the audience and the planning commission members. ANYONE can say ANYTHING . Thank you for your time and attention to these matters. Julie Owens-Rice 6300 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 Friday, May 30, 2014 AOL: Rubyjulie44 Attachments 1-124 RECORDING REQUESTED BV: Prog~ve Title ComJ>81W ,~ ·. ·rogress1ve WHEN RECORDED MAIL DOCUMENT AND TAX STATEMENT TO: The PeachtMe Family Trust 6321 VIiia Rosa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 APN: 7578-031--014 TITLE ORDER NO: PR1312495 ESCROW NO.: 13250-0M THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S use ONL y GRANT DEED -~ The undersigned Grantor(s) decfare that the DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS: ~ $ 926.20 County · XX computed on the full value of the interest of property conveyed, or ~ _computed on-the full value less the value of liens or encumbrances remaining thereon at the time of sale. -_OR transfer Is EXEMPT from tax fOr the following reason ~ FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which Is htwaby acknowledged, Meera Krishnal"lit an unmarried woman ;=; HEREBY GRANT(S) to M Garcia, Trustee of the Peachtree Family Trust dated CJ November 7, 2013, as amended 1 All that real property situated in lhe City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as: «) SEE EXHIBIT "N ATTACHED HERETO ANO MADE PART HEREOF " Commonly Known Aa: 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 t'2 Oated:Oecernber6,2013 ~~~ STATE OF CAL!FORN~Mttr } COUNTYOF __ L.().,.....(_.._~--~~+---~~~~~~--l On I "Z-/ l"C. / J i . before me, l> .............. l ..... <hvtJ'<---==-----1\1.....,att:hl.........., .......... ""--''.WS""""----. a Notary Pubtic peraonally appeared · .... tVl~~-''-f..__.4 ___ ~=--:~=o-=-h=V\IX.-"""-"'h ..... who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(&) whose name(s) is/are aubacrlbed to the within instrument and acknowledged lo me that he/ahelthey executed the same in hislherllheir authorized capadty(iea), and that by hislherJlheir signature(&) on the instrument the person(&), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) aded, e><ecuted the instrument I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the lawa of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNE~~AA~ Sign-~ MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE Meera Krishnan (SEAL) \\l Attachments 1-125 Mr. Gordon Leon Planning Commissioner Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3 0940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 6307 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 REC June 10, 2014 EIVED JUN 13 2014· COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN"f DEPARTMENT Re: Opposition to Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case Number ZON2014-00064) Dear Mr. Leon, Before any more discussion of the merits or lack thereof of this project, we need to be clear about the ownership about the property in question-6321 Villa Rosa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes. According to the records we neighbors have seen, the property is held in the name of the Peach Tree Family and Trust and signed by M. Garcia, Trustee. Nowhere does Mr. Hassan's name appear. Is Mr. Hassan qualified to speak as the owner of the house? If not, it is a moot point. When this discrepancy is resolved, then and only then will the details of the project be appropriate. I would, however, like to make a couple of additional comments. First, with regard to the claim by the Assistant City Planner that there are already two two-story houses on Villa Rosa, in addition to the large 5,000 square foot house on Villa Rosa, I would like to make a clarification. One home is a one story house with a two-story garage and the other is a one story home with a three-story garage. Technically they are not two-story homes. It would be prudent for the City Planner or Assistant City Planner to have the dates of these remodels for the next meeting and to visit these houses in person. Second, if Mr. Hassan can prove he is the owner of the property, another concern of ours is the size of the structure. Building yet another incompatible behemoth structure on a small and winding street detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood and sets an ominous precedent for the future. A 4,500 square foot house on such a small lot seems odd. I suggest that any Planning Commissioner who has not already come to see this lot in person do so at their earliest convenience. It is really not possible to visualize the planned structure by looking at the aerial photos or even from photos from a power point presentation. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We look forward to having our concerns addressed at the next Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2014. Sincerely, ~fo>~Ml--- Eva J. Muchnick, Dr. P.H. Attachments 1-126 Mr. John Cruikshank Planning Commissioner Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 6307 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 June 10, 2014 RECEIVED /t.:" JUN 13 2014· COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Opposition to Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case Number ZON2014-00064) Dear Mr. Cruikshank, Before any more discussion of the merits or lack thereof of this project, we need to be clear about the ownership about the property in question-6321 Villa Rosa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes. According to the records we neighbors have seen, the property is held in the name of the Peach Tree Family and Trust and signed by M. Garcia, Trustee. Nowhere does Mr. Hassan's name appear. Is Mr. Hassan qualified to speak as the owner of the house? If not, it is a moot point. When this discrepancy is resolved, then and only then will the details of the project be appropriate. I would, however, like to make a couple of additional comments. First, with regard to the claim by the Assistant City Planner that there are already two two-story houses on Villa Rosa, in addition to the large 5,000 square foot house on Villa Rosa, I would like to make a clarification. One home is a one story house with a two-story garage and the other is a one story home with a three-story garage. Technically they are not two-story homes. It would be prudent for the City Planner or Assistant City Planner to have the dates of these remodels for the next meeting and to visit these houses in person. Second, if Mr. Hassan can prove he is the owner of the property, another concern of ours is the size of the structure. Building yet another incompatible behemoth structure on a small and winding street detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood and sets an ominous precedent for the future. A 4,500 square foot house on such a small lot seems odd. I suggest that any Planning Commissioner who has not already come to see this lot in person do so at their earliest convenience. It is really not possible to visualize the planned structure by looking at the aerial photos or even from photos from a power point presentation. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We look forward to having our concerns addressed at the next Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2014. Sincerely, Eva J. Muchnick, Dr. P.H. Attachments 1-127 Mr. William James Planning Commissioner Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 6307 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 June 10, 2014 RECEIVED /t JUN 13 2014· DEPM~l Re: Opposition to Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case Number ZON2014-00064) Dear Mr. James, Before any more discussion of the merits or lack thereof of this project, we need to be clear about the ownership about the property in question-6321 Villa Rosa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes. According to the records we neighbors have seen, the property is held in the name of the Peach Tree Family and Trust and signed by M. Garcia, Trustee. Nowhere does Mr. Hassan's name appear. Is Mr. Hassan qualified to speak as the owner of the house? If not, it is a moot point. When this discrepancy is resolved, then and only then will the details of the project be appropriate. I would, however, like to make a couple of additional comments. First, with regard to the claim by the Assistant City Planner that there are already two two-story houses on Villa Rosa, in addition to the large 5,000 square foot house on Villa Rosa, I would like to make a clarification. One home is a one story house with a two-story garage and the other is a one story home with a three-story garage. Technically they are not two-story homes. It would be prudent for the City Planner or Assistant City Planner to have the dates of these remodels for the next meeting and to visit these houses in person. Second, if Mr. Hassan can prove he is the owner of the property, another concern of ours is the size of the structure. Building yet another incompatible behemoth structure on a small and winding street detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood and sets an ominous precedent for the future. A 4,500 square foot house on such a small lot seems odd. I suggest that any Planning Commissioner who has not already come to see this lot in person do so at their earliest convenience. It is really not possible to visualize the planned structure by looking at the aerial photos or even from photos from a power point presentation. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We look forward to having our concerns addressed at the next Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2014. Sincerely, ~ j2· ~-c,{_, Eva J. Muchnick, Dr. P.H. Attachments 1-128 Mr. Bill Gerstner Planning Commissioner Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 6307 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 R June 10, 2014 ECEIVED JUN 13 20 14 MMl!lhlllTW rOSY\~:1 ,, v.1: ~ •-;....: IJXEP. lln:!i!.'LJl.r. Re: Opposition to Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case Number ZON2014-00064) Dear Mr. Gerstner, Before any more discussion of the merits or lack thereof of this project, we need to be clear about the ownership about the property in question-6321 Villa Rosa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes. According to the records we neighbors have seen, the property is held in the name of the Peach Tree Family and Trust and signed by M. Garcia, Trustee. Nowhere does Mr. Hassan's name appear. Is Mr. Hassan qualified to speak as the owner of the house? If not, it is a moot point. When this discrepancy is resolved, then and only then will the details of the project be appropriate. I would, however, like to make a couple of additional comments. First, with regard to the claim by the Assistant City Planner that there are already two two-story houses on Villa Rosa, in addition to the large 5,000 square foot house on Villa Rosa, I would like to make a clarification. One home is a one story house with a two-story garage and the other is a one story home with a three-story garage. Technically they are not two-story homes. It would be prudent for the City Planner or Assistant City Planner to have the dates of these remodels for the next meeting and to visit these houses in person. Second, if Mr. Hassan can prove he is the owner of the property, another concern of ours is the size of the structure. Building yet another incompatible behemoth structure on a small and winding street detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood and sets an ominous precedent for the future. A 4,500 square foot house on such a small lot seems odd. I suggest that any Planning Commissioner who has not already come to see this lot in person do so at their earliest convenience. It is really not possible to visualize the planned structure by looking at the aerial photos or even from photos from a power point presentation. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We look forward to having our concerns addressed at the next Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2014. Sincerely, k j2-~--~ Eva J. Muchnick, Dr. P.H. Attachments 1-129 Mr. Dave Emenhiser Planning Commissioner Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 6307 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 RECEIVebJne 10, 2014 JUN 13 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Opposition to Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case Number ZON2014-00064) Dear Mr. Emenhiser, Before any more discussion of the merits or lack thereof of this project, we need to be clear about the ownership about the property in question-6321 Villa Rosa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes. According to the records we neighbors have seen, the property is held in the name of the Peach Tree Family and Trust and signed by M. Garcia, Trustee. Nowhere does Mr. Hassan's name appear. Is Mr. Hassan qualified to speak as the owner of the house? If not, it is a moot point. When this discrepancy is resolved, then and only then will the details of the project be appropriate. I would, however, like to make a couple of additional comments. First, with regard to the claim by the Assistant City Planner that there are already two two-story houses on Villa Rosa, in addition to the large 5,000 square foot house on Villa Rosa, I would like to make a clarification. One home is a one story house with a two-story garage and the other is a one story home with a three-story garage. Technically they are not two-story homes. It would be prudent for the City Planner or Assistant City Planner to have the dates of these remodels for the next meeting and to visit these houses in person. Second, if Mr. Hassan can prove he is the owner of the property, another concern of ours is the size of the structure. Building yet another incompatible behemoth structure on a small and winding street detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood and sets an ominous precedent for the future. A 4,500 square foot house on such a small lot seems odd. I suggest that any Planning Commissioner who has not already come to see this lot in person do so at their earliest convenience. It is really not possible to visualize the planned structure by looking at the aerial photos or even from photos from a power point presentation. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We look forward to having our concerns addressed at the next Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2014. Sincerely, ~ P-· ~'e-L- EvaJ. Muchnick, Dr. P.H. Attachments 1-130 Mr. David Tomblin Planning Commissioner Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 6307 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 RECE~D 10, 2014 JUN 13 2014 tOMMUNITV DEVELOPMENT Dl!PARTMENT Re: Opposition to Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case Number ZON2014-00064) Dear Mr. Tomblin, Before any more discussion of the merits or lack thereof of this project, we need to be clear about the ownership about the property in question-6321 Villa Rosa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes. According to the records we neighbors have seen, the property is held in the name of the Peach Tree Family and Trust and signed by M. Garcia, Trustee. Nowhere does Mr. Hassan's name appear. Is Mr. Hassan qualified to speak as the owner of the house? If not, it is a moot point. When this discrepancy is resolved, then and only then will the details of the project be appropriate. I would, however, like to make a couple of additional comments. First, with regard to the claim by the Assistant City Planner that there are already two two-story houses on Villa Rosa, in addition to the large 5,000 square foot house on Villa Rosa, I would like to make a clarification. One home is a one story house with a two-story garage and the other is a one story home with a three-story garage. Technically they are not two-story homes. It would be prudent for the City Planner or Assistant City Planner to have the dates of these remodels for the next meeting and to visit these houses in person. Second, if Mr. Hassan can prove he is the owner of the property, another concern of ours is the size of the structure. Building yet another incompatible behemoth structure on a small and winding street detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood and sets an ominous precedent for the future. A 4,500 square foot house on such a small lot seems odd. I suggest that any Planning Commissioner who has not already come to see this lot in person do so at their earliest convenience. It is really not possible to visualize the planned structure by looking at the aerial photos or even from photos from a power point presentation. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We look forward to having our concerns addressed at the next Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2014. Sincerely, ~jl -~~ Eva J. Muchnick, Dr. P.H. Attachments 1-131 Mr. Robert Nelson Planning Commissioner Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 6307 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 REcID~ho, 2014 JUN 13 2014 COMMUNRY DEVEl..oPMENT D£MRnerr Re: Opposition to Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case Number ZON2014-00064) Dear Mr. Nelson, Before any more discussion of the merits or lack thereof of this project, we need to be clear about the ownership about the property in question-6321 Villa Rosa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes. According to the records we neighbors have seen, the property is held in the name of the Peach Tree Family and Trust and signed by M. Garcia, Trustee. Nowhere does Mr. Hassan's name appear. Is Mr. Hassan qualified to speak as the owner of the house? If not, it is a moot point. When this discrepancy is resolved, then and only then will the details of the project be appropriate. I would, however, like to make a couple of additional comments. First, with regard to the claim by the Assistant City Planner that there are already two two-story houses on Villa Rosa, in addition to the large 5,000 square foot house on Villa Rosa, I would like to make a clarification. One home is a one story house with a two-story garage and the other is a one story home with a three-story garage. Technically they are not two-story homes. It would be prudent for the City Planner or Assistant City Planner to have the dates of these remodels for the next meeting and to visit these houses in person. Second, if Mr. Hassan can prove he is the owner of the property, another concern of ours is the size of the structure. Building yet another incompatible behemoth structure on a small and winding street detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood and sets an ominous precedent for the future. A 4,500 square foot house on such a small lot seems odd. I suggest that any Planning Commissioner who has not already come to see this lot in person do so at their earliest convenience. It is really not possible to visualize the planned structure by looking at the aerial photos or even from photos from a power point presentation. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We look forward to having our concerns addressed at the next Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2014. Sincerely, Eva J. Muchnick, Dr. P.H. Attachments 1-132 RECEIVED May 31, 2014 JUN 0 2 2014 Ms. Leza Mikhail COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Associate Planner DEPARTMENT Planning Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELCIPiitF.N'T DEPARTMEN -r Subject: Rebuttal to Comments Provided by Sam Hassan at Hearing on May 27, 2014 in reference to agenda item 3; Height Variation, CASE #ZON2014-00064, 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Dear Ms. Leza Mikhail, It was a great experience for me to attend the Public Hearing held by the Planning Commission on Tuesday evening. Unfortunately, several comments provided by Sam Hassan regarding myself are far from truthful and shockingly appalling. I would like to provide the commission the correct story on the following two items. Untruth #1: Sam Hassan stated that I, Akemichi Yamada (a.k.a. Joe), requested to cut trees down on his property. Fact #1: The tree cutting activity on his property had already started before I met Sam Hassan for the first time on January 25, 2014. Sam Hassan came to our door on January 25 and showed me the drawing of the proposed remodel. He asked me to sign the RPV Form "Early Neighborhood Consultation Form". During the course of the conversation, he described what he was doing and what he was going to do about the trees located on his side of the fence between our properties. He asked me if it was OK to cut down trees. I gave no objection to cutting trees down because trees were his; even though deep down I felt a sorrow for losing the beautiful trees. There is a big difference between "requesting" and "not objecting". The tree cutting activity continued and all trees in his backyard were cut down by February 8, other than shaving down the tree stumps and roots. Untruth #2: Sam Hassan suggested that cutting a fruit tree at East side of my back yard is the proof that I requested to cut trees down on his property. Fact #2: On April 25, 2014, I had a fruit tree cut down to get rid of the rat infestation at the base of the fruit tree. At the same time, the top of another tree at the West side was trimmed because it was getting too close to the power lines. Please note that, to the best of my knowledge, these trees have no impact to any privacy or view with respect to any I Attachments 1-133 neighbors. Sam Hassan's property is located to the South of my property. We welcome anyone to inspect our property to verify this. It is a heinous attempt by Sam Hassan to link my normal property maintenance to the event in January and try to suggest "Akemichi Yamada requested to cut down trees on his property in January". I will be happy to provide any additional information if needed. Sincerely, ak~/i·;?Nt-~/u .._/-- Ak:emichi Y amUa 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544A525 Attachment # 1 : Discussion Attachment #2: Copy of the cancelled check, payable to E&M Tree Service, Dated April 25,2014 2 Attachments 1-134 Attachment # 1 Discussion: We have been living at 6320 Rio Linda Drive for the last 21 years continuously, and we liked the rustic atmosphere in our backyard provided by those trees on the other side of the fence. The old wooden fence and trees was the playground of squirrels. We could hear birds chirping in the trees. Occasionally we saw raccoons in the tree. Some of our plants enjoyed shades provided by trees during a hot summer. There were no reasons for us to ask the back neighbor to cut down trees, and in the last 21 years we have never asked the back neighbor to cut trees down. So, why would we request Sam Hassan to cut trees down? No, we never requested Sam Hassan to cut trees down for us. During the course of the conversation on January 25, Sam Hassan described what he was doing and what he was going to do about trees on his yard. He said cutting trees would provide more sunshine to our backyard, and help plants to grow. But these were his words, not ours. Because trees were his, there were no reasons for us to object his plan. Some of the trees were butting up against the old fence at the base and had to be removed in order to install a new fence, which Sam was planning to do. Below is the photo of our backyard taken on January 25, in which you can see a tree at left, whose branches were already cut off, indicating the tree cutting activity had begun already starting at the East end. Please note that even if trees were left intact, the second floor of the remodel would be visible between tree trunks. 3 Attachments 1-135 Chase Online -Check Search Results Page 1of1 /f11}}t)/JJJt"AJT ;ff~ Chase Online Friday, May 30, 2014 Check Details for Check Number -\e{ ~ ~~ Post Date 04/29/2014 Amount $500.00 Account number Routing number ~~ ~4-~ Check Images (Front and Back) AKEMICHI YAMADA 1!>-~l!j!41302 4 8 6 7 YOSHIKO YAMADA t I -'!:::f3:'-" 6320 Rio uNDA oA. s1o.644-4628 o..n 'I-2s. 1" ~ RANCHO PALOS VEROES. CA 90275 -·-'::!:. ·Fl,~~t;J!::j Din I$~:~ CHASE 0 .. .---1~.~ 8 Q ~ ti . "Z ' ~S-i,:!:i t ~I i ~~A~ ~ . l , r b.ti ~ l'l x ~ ·!>I ~~·1;!; ! ~ "' ; .. "' ~ ia f m ~ : . q~ :::: l . ..,. .. ~ t., l. .. 1 ~ 't) . ! ~"' Y. ; !!!· .:>t ' rt\ f'lli! • l, • .: + r .i .fl ., . This information is provided for your convenience and does not replace your monthly account statement(s). which are the official records of your accounts and does not replace any other notice we send you JPMorgan chase Bank, N A Member FDIC © 2014 JPMorgan Chase & Co https://resources.chase.com/commonui/javascripts/nisi/ui/html/Print.html 5/30/2014 Attachments 1-136 May 31, 2014 Honorable Commissioner Robert A. Nelson Planning Commission, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RECEIVED JUN 0 2 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Subject: Rebuttal to Comments Provided by Sam Hassan at Hearing on May 27, 2014 in reference to agenda item 3; Height Variation, CASE #ZON2014-00064, 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Dear Honorable Commissioner Robert A. Nelson, I would like to thank you for allowing me to address you on Tuesday evening. It was a great experience for me to attend the Public Hearing held by the Planning Commission. I now realize it is a very difficult task to serve on the Commission since you must hear many comments; some are often conflicting to each other. It takes Wisdom of Solomon to arrive at a reasonable solution. To do so, you are expecting us to provide accurate and truthful information. Unfortunately, several comments provided by Sam Hassan regarding myself are far from truthful and shockingly appalling. I would like to provide the commission the correct story on the following two items. Untruth #1: Sam Hassan stated that I, Akemichi Yamada (a.k.a. Joe), requested to cut trees down on his property. Fact #1: The tree cutting activity on his property had already started before I met Sam Hassan/or the.first time on January 25, 2014. Sam Hassan came to our door on January 25 and showed me the drawing of the proposed remodel. He asked me to sign the RPV Form "Early Neighborhood Consultation Form". During the course of the conversation, he described what he was doing and what he was going to do about the trees located on his side of the fence between our properties. He asked me if it was OK to cut down trees. I gave no objection to cutting trees down because trees were his; even though deep down I felt a sorrow for losing the beautiful trees. There is a big difference between "requesting" and "not objecting". The tree cutting activity continued and all trees in his backyard were cut down by February 8, other than shaving down the tree stumps and roots. Untruth #2: Sam Hassan suggested that cutting a fruit tree at East side of my back yard is the proof that I requested to cut trees down on his property. 1 Attachments 1-137 Fact #2: On April 25, 2014, I had a fruit tree cut down to get rid of the rat infestation at the base of the fruit tree. At the same time, the top of another tree at the West side was trimmed because it was getting too close to the power lines. Please note that, to the best of my knowledge, these trees have no impact to any privacy or view with respect to any neighbors. Sam Hassan's property is located to the South of my property. We welcome anyone to inspect our property to verify this. It is a heinous attempt by Sam Hassan to link my normal property maintenance to the event in January and try to suggest "Akemichi Yamada requested to cut down trees on his property in January". I will be happy to provide any additional information if needed. Sincerely, ;:t't#t~ . ·~//l>-;t- Akemichi Yamadf 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-4525 Attachment #I : Discussion Attachment #2: Copy of the cancelled check, payable to E&M Tree Service, Dated April 25,2014 2 Attachments 1-138 Attachment # 1 Discussion: We have been living at 6320 Rio Linda Drive for the last 21 years continuously, and we liked the rustic atmosphere in our backyard provided by those trees on the other side of the fence. The old wooden fence and trees was the playground of squirrels. We could hear birds chirping in the trees. Occasionally we saw raccoons in the tree. Some of our plants enjoyed shades provided by trees during a hot summer. There were no reasons for us to ask the back neighbor to cut down trees, and in the last 21 years we have never asked the back neighbor to cut trees down. So, why would we request Sam Hassan to cut trees down? No, we never requested Sam Hassan to cut trees down for us. During the course of the conversation on January 25, Sam Hassan described what he was doing and what he was going to do about trees on his yard. He said cutting trees would provide more sunshine to our backyard, and help plants to grow. But these were his words, not ours. Because trees were his, there were no reasons for us to object his plan. Some of the trees were butting up against the old fence at the base and had to be removed in order to install a new fence, which Sam was planning to do. Below is the photo of our backyard taken on January 25, in which you can see a tree at left, whose branches were already cut off, indicating the tree cutting activity had begun already starting at the East end. Please note that even if trees were left intact, the second floor of the remodel would be visible between tree trunks. 3 Attachments 1-139 Chase Online -Check Search " '•mlts Page 1of1 /rT f /-}t.f/JJJ t"A!T :ff ;z_ Chase Online Friday, May 30, 2014 Check Details for Check Number · Vl<'. d.~ :fbfl?rretrb1 Post Date 04129/2014 Amount $500.00 Account number Routing number ~~ ~~~ Check Images (Front and Back) AKEMICHI YAMADA l!t~!!il413112 4 8 6 7 YOSHIKO YAMADA L L -~,81"-6320 RIO UNOA CR. 31Q.644.4625 -·-1/-2S / ,/ ,. RANCHO PALOS VERD&S. CA 90275 -·· - -":!:.. ·r;=·_:-----4&_\ =i!Zi===·~=~~~-i=e......_.~-=-·-=-0-=-~--I-~-=--=-' -----$==··· ~·:-;;= CHASE 0 .. . -8 ~ , r 'I: i tl ~ r j g: s . ~ ~ ~ :I! ~ f'" I l .1 ~...,. r ~· •t,.-, l -. ~ f ~!!!-Y. .. ~t f rt\ ! . .4, ' ~ . .: + f i ~. J\ This information is provided for your convenience and does not replace your monthly account statement(s), which are the official records of your accounts and does not replace any other notice we send you. JPMorgan chase Bank , N .A Member FDIC © 2014 JPMorgan Chase & Co . httos://resources.chase.com/commonui/javascripts/nisi/ui/html/Print.html 5/30/2014 Attachments 1-140 May 31, 2014 Honorable Commissioner William J. James Planning Commission, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RECEIVED JUN 0 2 ?.'ffi~4 ~nnr~<>,P.~;r ~~jf Subject: Rebuttal to Comments Provided by Sam Hassan at Hearing on May 27, 2014 in reference to agenda item 3; Height Variation, CASE #ZON2014-00064, 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Dear Honorable Commissioner William J. James, I would like to thank you for allowing me to address you on Tuesday evening. It was a great experience for me to attend the Public Hearing held by the Planning Commission. I now realize it is a very difficult task to serve on the Commission since you must hear many comments; some are often conflicting to each other. It takes Wisdom of Solomon to arrive at a reasonable solution. To do so, you are expecting us to provide accurate and truthful information. Unfortunately, several comments provided by Sam Hassan regarding myself are far from truthful and shockingly appalling. I would like to provide the commission the correct story on the following two items. Untruth #1: Sam Hassan stated that I, Akemichi Yamada (a.k.a. Joe), requested to cut trees down on his property. Fact #1: The tree cutting activity on his property had already started before I met Sam Hassan for the first time on January 25, 2014. Sam Hassan came to our door on January 25 and showed me the drawing of the proposed remodel. He asked me to sign the RPV Form "Early Neighborhood Consultation Form". During the course of the conversation, he described what he was doing and what he was going to do about the trees located on his side of the fence between our properties. He asked me if it was OK to cut down trees. I gave no objection to cutting trees down because trees were his; even though deep down I felt a sorrow for losing the beautiful trees. There is a big difference between "requesting" and "not objecting". The tree cutting activity continued and all trees in his backyard were cut down by February 8, other than shaving down the tree stumps and roots. Untruth #2: Sam Hassan suggested that cutting a fruit tree at East side of my back yard is the proof that I requested to cut trees down on his property. 1 Attachments 1-141 Fact #2: On April 25, 2014, I had a fruit tree cut down to get rid of the rat infestation at the base of the fruit tree. At the same time, the top of another tree at the West side was trimmed because it was getting too close to the power lines. Please note that, to the best of my knowledge, these trees have no impact to any privacy or view with respect to any neighbors. Sam Hassan's property is located to the South of my property. We welcome anyone to inspect our property to verify this. It is a heinous attempt by Sam Hassan to link my normal property maintenance to the event in January and try to suggest "Akemichi Yamada requested to cut down trees on his property in January". I will be happy to provide any additional information if needed. Sincerely, ~-~%: ~/U ,/f-c ~~~-- Akemichi Yamada 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-4525 Attachment # 1 : Discussion Attachment #2: Copy of the cancelled check, payable to E&M Tree Service, Dated April 25,2014 2 Attachments 1-142 Attachment # 1 Discussion: We have been living at 6320 Rio Linda Drive for the last 21 years continuously, and we liked the rustic atmosphere in our backyard provided by those trees on the other side of the fence. The old wooden fence and trees was the playground of squirrels. We could hear birds chirping in the trees. Occasionally we saw raccoons in the tree. Some of our plants enjoyed shades provided by trees during a hot summer. There were no reasons for us to ask the back neighbor to cut down trees, and in the last 21 years we have never asked the back neighbor to cut trees down. So, why would we request Sam Hassan to cut trees down? No, we never requested Sam Hassan to cut trees down for us. During the course of the conversation on January 25, Sam Hassan described what he was doing and what he was going to do about trees on his yard. He said cutting trees would provide more sunshine to our backyard, and help plants to grow. But these were his words, not ours. Because trees were his, there were no reasons for us to object his plan. Some of the trees were butting up against the old fence at the base and had to be removed in order to install a new fence, which Sam was planning to do. Below is the photo of our backyard taken on January 25, in which you can see a tree at left, whose branches were already cut off, indicating the tree cutting activity had begun already starting at the East end. Please note that even if trees were left intact, the second floor of the remodel would be visible between tree trunks. 3 Attachments 1-143 Chase Online -Check Search "" --suits Page 1of1 Chase Online Friday, May 30, 2014 Check Details for Check Number -'fl<. 4,~ fbfh~ Post Date 04/29/2014 Amount $500.00 Account number Routing number ~~ ~~~ Check Images (Front and Back) AKEMICHI YAMADA !t~!i!413111 4 8 6 7 YOSHIKO YAMADA i I - 1;::!8:"-8320 Alo LINDA oA. 31D-644-462& -·n If 2s. 1 n · RANCHO PALOS VERO&s. CA 90275 --·-~ ',,.vronc ~ ~ I $-sif;.·!f!.-~==;/.:::~==~==:::::::· ==~==='1=~===~~=:::::=0=~=/=~=====: __ '""':;::~=~=.-lit~-= CHASE 0 .. . -8 0 -z t; t j ~ 11 .f' .. .,- t..,. •t.,., . ! '°t) e• Y. • \!!- ·~ f rt\ rji ' ; ... , + .i ,J\ This information is provided for your convenience and does not replace your monthly account statement(s). which are the official records of your accounts and does not replace any other notice we send you , JPMorgan chase Bank, NA Member FDIC © 2014 JPMorgan Chase & Co . httns://resources.chase.com/commonui/javascripts/nisi/ui/html/Print.html 5/30/2014 Attachments 1-144 RECEIVED May 31, 2014 JUN 0 2 2014 Honorable Commissioner Gordon Leon COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Commission, City of Rancho Palos VerdeQEPARTMENT 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 FU!CEIVEO -MAY 2~ COMMUNITY Dl!V~LOPM£Nt DIPARTMfiN"f Subject: Rebuttal to Comments Provided by Sam Hassan at Hearing on May 27, 2014 in reference to agenda item 3; Height Variation, CASE #ZON2014-00064, 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Dear Honorable Commissioner Gordon Leon, I would like to thank you for allowing me to address you on Tuesday evening. It was a great experience for me to attend the Public Hearing held by the Planning Commission. I now realize it is a very difficult task to serve on the Commission since you must hear many comments; some are often conflicting to each other. It takes Wisdom of Solomon to arrive at a reasonable solution. To do so, you are expecting us to provide accurate and truthful information. Unfortunately, several comments provided by Sam Hassan regarding myself are far from truthful and shockingly appalling. I would like to provide the commission the correct story on the following two items. Untruth #1: Sam Hassan stated that I, Akemichi Yamada (a.k.a. Joe), requested to cut trees down on his property. Fact #1: The tree cutting activity on his property had already started before I met Sam Hassan for the first time on January 25, 2014. Sam Hassan came to our door on January 25 and showed me the drawing of the proposed remodel. He asked me to sign the RPV Form "Early Neighborhood Consultation Form". During the course of the conversation, he described what he was doing and what he was going to do about the trees located on his side of the fence between our properties. He asked me if it was OK to cut down trees. I gave no objection to cutting trees down because trees were his; even though deep down I felt a sorrow for losing the beautiful trees. There is a big difference between ''requesting" and "not objecting". The tree cutting activity continued and all trees in his backyard were cut down by February 8, other than shaving down the tree stumps and roots. Untruth #2: Sam Hassan suggested that cutting a fruit tree at East side of my back yard is the proof that I requested to cut trees down on his property. 1 Attachments 1-145 Fact #2: On April 25, 2014, I had a fruit tree cut down to get rid of the rat infestation at the base of the fruit tree. At the same time, the top of another tree at the West side was trimmed because it was getting too close to the power lines. Please note that, to the best of my knowledge, these trees have no impact to any privacy or view with respect to any neighbors. Sam Hassan's property is located to the South of my property. We welcome anyone to inspect our property to verify this. It is a heinous attempt by Sam Hassan to link my normal property maintenance to the event in January and try to suggest "Akemichi Yamada requested to cut down trees on his property in January". I will be happy to provide any additional information if needed. Sincerely, fi4&1~J, -~~/f.- Akemichi Yamada 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-4525 Attachment # 1 : Discussion Attachment #2: Copy of the cancelled check, payable to E&M Tree Service, Dated April 25,2014 2 Attachments 1-146 Attachment # 1 Discussion: We have been living at 6320 Rio Linda Drive for the last 21 years continuously, and we liked the rustic atmosphere in our backyard provided by those trees on the other side of the fence. The old wooden fence and trees was the playground of squirrels. We could hear birds chirping in the trees. Occasionally we saw raccoons in the tree. Some of our plants enjoyed shades provided by trees during a hot summer. There were no reasons for us to ask the back neighbor to cut down trees, and in the last 21 years we have never asked the back neighbor to cut trees down. So, why would we request Sam Hassan to cut trees down? No, we never requested Sam Hassan to cut trees down for us. During the course of the conversation on January 25, Sam Hassan described what he was doing and what he was going to do about trees on his yard. He said cutting trees would provide more sunshine to our backyard, and help plants to grow. But these were his words, not ours. Because trees were his, there were no reasons for us to object his plan. Some of the trees were butting up against the old fence at the base and had to be removed in order to install a new fence, which Sam was planning to do. Below is the photo of our backyard taken on January 25, in which you can see a tree at left, whose branches were already cut off, indicating the tree cutting activity had begun already starting at the East end. Please note that even if trees were left intact, the second floor of the remodel would be visible between tree trunks. 3 Attachments 1-147 Chase Online -Check Search T' ~sults Page 1of1 Chase Online Friday, May 30, 2014 Check Detalls for Check Number -te! ~ +i?fQ~ Post Date 04/29/2014 Amount $500.00 Account number Routing number ~~ ~4-~ Check Images (Front and Back) .-8 ~ 'Z ~i L. ' j "' ~ ~ t l i~ ~'" 4 .,. r \oJ· c,..., ~~ 't> -:ii· Y. ·~ f rt\ r~i • 4, • ; ., i ..fl This information is provided for your conven ience and does not replace your monthly account staternent(s). which are the official records of your accounts and does not replace any other notice we send you . JPMorgan chase Bank, NA Member FDIC © 2014 JPMorgan Chase & Co . httos://resources.chase.com/commonui/javascripts/nisi/ui/html/Print.html 5/30/2014 Attachments 1-148 RECEIVED May 31, 2014 Honorable Commissioner John Cruiks~IDEVELOPMENJ Planning Commission, City of Rancho Palos ~d@'STMENl 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Subject: Rebuttal to Comments Provided by Sam Hassan at Hearing on May 27, 2014 in reference to agenda item 3; Height Variation, CASE #ZON2014-00064, 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Dear Honorable Commissioner John Cruikshank, I would like to thank you for allowing me to address you on Tuesday evening. It was a great experience for me to attend the Public Hearing held by the Planning Commission. I now realize it is a very difficult task to serve on the Commission since you must hear many comments; some are often conflicting to each other. It takes Wisdom of Solomon to arrive at a reasonable solution. To do so, you are expecting us to provide accurate and truthful information. Unfortunately, several comments provided by Sam Hassan regarding myself are far from truthful and shockingly appalling. I would like to provide the commission the correct story on the following two items. Untruth #1: Sam Hassan stated that I, Akemichi Yamada (a.k.a. Joe), requested to cut trees down on his property. Fact #1: The tree cutting activity on his property had already started before I met Sam Hassan for the first time on January 25, 2014. Sam Hassan came to our door on January 25 and showed me the drawing of the proposed remodel. He asked me to sign the RPV Form "Early Neighborhood Consultation Form". During the course of the conversation, he described what he was doing and what he was going to do about the trees located on his side of the fence between our properties. He asked me if it was OK to cut down trees. I gave no objection to cutting trees down because trees were his; even though deep down I felt a sorrow for losing the beautiful trees. There is a big difference between "requesting" and "not objecting". The tree cutting activity continued and all trees in his backyard were cut down by February 8, other than shaving down the tree stumps and roots. Untruth #2: Sam Hassan suggested that cutting a fruit tree at East side of my back yard is the proof that I requested to cut trees down on his property. 1 Attachments 1-149 Fact #2: On April 25, 2014, I had a fruit tree cut down to get rid of the rat infestation at the base of the fruit tree. At the same time, the top of another tree at the West side was trimmed because it was getting too close to the power lines. Please note that, to the best of my knowledge, these trees have no impact to any privacy or view with respect to any neighbors. Sam Hassan's property is located to the South of my property. We welcome anyone to inspect our property to verify this. It is a heinous attempt by Sam Hassan to link my normal property maintenance to the event in January and try to suggest "Akemichi Yamada requested to cut down trees on his property in January". I will be happy to provide any additional information if needed. Sincerely, a~?kL·-:1µ ~ Akemichi YamadV 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-4525 Attachment # 1 : Discussion Attachment #2: Copy of the cancelled check, payable to E&M Tree Service, Dated April 25,2014 2 Attachments 1-150 Attachment # 1 Discussion: We have been living at 6320 Rio Linda Drive for the last 21 years continuously, and we liked the rustic atmosphere in our backyard provided by those trees on the other side of the fence. The old wooden fence and trees was the playground of squirrels. We could hear birds chirping in the trees. Occasionally we saw raccoons in the tree. Some of our plants enjoyed shades provided by trees during a hot summer. There were no reasons for us to ask the back neighbor to cut down trees, and in the last 21 years we have never asked the back neighbor to cut trees down. So, why would we request Sam Hassan to cut trees down? No, we never requested Sam Hassan to cut trees down for us. During the course of the conversation on January 25, Sam Hassan described what he was doing and what he was going to do about trees on his yard. He said cutting trees would provide more sunshine to our backyard, and help plants to grow. But these were his words, not ours. Because trees were his, there were no reasons for us to object his plan. Some of the trees were butting up against the old fence at the base and had to be removed in order to install a new fence, which Sam was planning to do. Below is the photo of our backyard taken on January 25~ in which you can see a tree at left, whose branches were already cut off, indicating the tree cutting activity had begun already starting at the East end. Please note that even if trees were left intact, the second floor of the remodel would be visible between tree trunks. 3 Attachments 1-151 Chase Online -Check Search T' -i;;ults Page 1 of I Chase Online Friday, May 30, 2014 Check Details for Check Number ·'fl<. '4,~ ~~ Post Date 04/2912014 Amount $500.00 Account number Routing number ~~ ~i~ Check Images (Front and Back) .-8 0 "Z t11 t~ j ~ ~ ~ "" ; a r"' ~ .,. i ..,. ~ -! "t) !'!"' Y. -!D · i=i f rt\ • ,: ,.. + ... i J\ n • This information is provided for your conven ience and does not replace your monthly account statement(s). which are the official records of your accounts and does not replace any other notice we send you . JPMorgan chase Bank , N.A. Member FDIC © 2014 JPMorgan Chase & Co . httns://resources.chase.com/commonui/javascripts/nisi/ui/html/Print.html 5/30/2014 Attachments 1-152 May 31, 2014 Honorable Commissioner Bill Gerstner Planning Commission, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 AICl!IVl!D JUN 0 2. 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Subject: Rebuttal to Comments Provided by Sam Hassan at Hearing on May 27, 2014 in reference to agenda item 3; Height Variation, CASE #ZON2014~00064, 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Dear Honorable Commissioner Bill Gerstner, I would like to thank you for allowing me to address you on Tuesday evening. It was a great experience for me to attend the Public Hearing held by the Planning Commission. I now realize it is a very difficult task to serve on the Commission since you must hear many comments; some are often conflicting to each other. It takes Wisdom of Solomon to arrive at a reasonable solution. To do so, you are expecting us to provide accurate and truthful information. Unfortunately, several comments provided by Sam Hassan regarding myself are far from truthful and shockingly appalling. I would like to provide the commission the correct story on the following two items. Untruth #1: Sam Hassan stated that I, Akemichi Yamada (a.k.a. Joe), requested to cut trees down on his property. Fact #1: The tree cutting activity on his property had already started before I met Sam Hassan for the first time on January 25, 2014. Sam Hassan came to our door on January 25 and showed me the drawing of the proposed remodel. He asked me to sign the RPV Form "Early Neighborhood Consultation Form". During the course of the conversation, he described what he was doing and what he was going to do about the trees located on his side of the fence between our properties. He asked me if it was OK to cut down trees. I gave no objection to cutting trees down because trees were his; even though deep down I felt a sorrow for losing the beautiful trees. There is a big difference between "requesting" and "not objecting". The tree cutting activity continued and all trees in his backyard were cut down by February 8, other than shaving down the tree stumps and roots. Untruth #2: Sam Hassan suggested that cutting a fruit tree at East side of my back yard is the proof that I requested to cut trees down on his property. 1 Attachments 1-153 Fact #2: On April 25, 2014, I had a fruit tree cut down to get rid of the rat infestation at the base of the fruit tree. At the same time, the top of another tree at the West side was trimmed because it was getting too close to the power lines. Please note that, to the best of my knowledge, these trees have no impact to any privacy or view with respect to any neighbors. Sam Hassan's property is located to the South of my property. We welcome anyone to inspect our property to verify this. It is a heinous attempt by Sam Hassan to link my normal property maintenance to the event in January and try to suggest "Akemichi Yamada requested to cut down trees on his property in January". I will be happy to provide any additional information if needed. Sincerely, /JL t/,.,~._/ U"~~~p Cl . ~--~- Akemichi Yamada 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-4525 Attachment #I : Discussion Attachment #2: Copy of the cancelled check, payable to E&M Tree Service, Dated April 25,2014 2 Attachments 1-154 Attachment #I Discussion: We have been living at 6320 Rio Linda Drive for the last 21 years continuously, and we liked the rustic atmosphere in our backyard provided by those trees on the other side of the fence . The old wooden fence and trees was the playground of squirrels. We could hear birds chirping in the trees. Occasionally we saw raccoons in the tree. Some of our plants enjoyed shades provided by trees during a hot summer. There were no reasons for us to ask the back neighbor to cut down trees, and in the last 21 years we have never asked the back neighbor to cut trees down. So, why would we request Sam Hassan to cut trees down? No, we never requested Sam Hassan to cut trees down for us. During the course of the conversation on January 25, Sam Hassan described what he was doing and what he was going to do about trees on his yard. He said cutting trees would provide more sunshine to our backyard, and help plants to grow. But these were his words, not ours. Because trees were his, there were no reasons for us to object his plan. Some of the trees were butting up against the old fence at the base and had to be removed in order to install a new fence, which Sam was planning to do. Below is the photo of our backyard taken on January 25, in which you can see a tree at left, whose branches were already cut off, indicating the tree cutting activity had begun already starting at the East end. Please note that even if trees were left intact, the second floor of the remodel would be visible between tree trunks. 3 Attachments 1-155 Chase Online -Check Search D esults Page 1of1 Chase Online Friday, May 30, 2014 Check Details for Check Number -~~~ Post Date 0412912014 Amount $500.00 Account number Routing number ~~ ~4-~ Check Images (Front and Back) .-i f . ~ I i. . f . i:;. ·~ ~ AKEMICHI YAMADA YOSHIKO YAMADA ll320 RIO LINDA DA. 31011tt 41125 RANCHO PALOS VERD&9. CA G0275 . •· • 8 ti ~ ti l ! t ~ i i £,. ~..,. r . t,., ~;. ~ ~t f rt\ :i ' cf: i J\ This information is provided for your convenience and does not replace your monthly account statement(s). which are the official records of your accounts and does not replace any other notice we send you . JPMorgan chase Bank . N.A. Member FDIC © 2014 JPMorgan Chase & Co. httos://resources.chase.com/commonui/javascripts/nisi/ui/html/Print.html 5/30/2014 Attachments 1-156 May 31, 2014 Honorable Commissioner Dave Emenhiser Planning Commission, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RECEIVED JUN 0 2 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN1' DIPAF!TMENi Subject: Rebuttal to Comments Provided by Sam Hassan at Hearing on May 27, 2014 in reference to agenda item 3; Height Variation, CASE #ZON2014-00064, 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Dear Honorable Commissioner Dave Emenhiser, I would like to thank you for allowing me to address you on Tuesday evening. It was a great experience for me to attend the Public Hearing held by the Planning Commission. I now realize it is a very difficult task to serve on the Commission since you must hear many comments; some are often conflicting to each other. It takes Wisdom of Solomon to arrive at a reasonable solution. To do so, you are expecting us to provide accurate and truthful information. Unfortunately, several comments provided by Sam Hassan regarding myself are far from truthful and shockingly appalling. I would like to provide the commission the correct story on the following two items. Untruth #1: Sam Hassan stated that I, Akemichi Yamada (a.k.a. Joe), requested to cut trees down on his property. Fact #1: The tree cutting activity on his property had already started before I met Sam Hassan/or the.first time on January 25, 2014. Sam Hassan came to our door on January 25 and showed me the drawing of the proposed remodel. He asked me to sign the RPV Form "Early Neighborhood Consultation Form". During the course of the conversation, he described what he was doing and what he was going to do about the trees located on his side of the fence between our properties. He asked me if it was OK to cut down trees. I gave no objection to cutting trees down because trees were his; even though deep down I felt a sorrow for losing the beautiful trees. There is a big difference between "requesting" and "not objecting". The tree cutting activity continued and all trees in his backyard were cut down by February 8, other than shaving down the tree stumps and roots. Untruth #2: Sam Hassan suggested that cutting a fruit tree at East side of my back yard is the proof that I requested to cut trees down on his property. 1 Attachments 1-157 Fact #2: On April 25, 2014, I had a fruit tree cut down to get rid of the rat infestation at the base of the fruit tree. At the same time, the top of another tree at the West side was trimmed because it was getting too close to the power lines. Please note that, to the best of my knowledge, these trees have no impact to any privacy or view with respect to any neighbors. Sam Hassan's property is located to the South of my property. We welcome anyone to inspect our property to verify this. It is a heinous attempt by Sam Hassan to link my normal property maintenance to the event in January and try to suggest "Akemichi Yamada requested to cut down trees on his property in January". I will be happy to provide any additional information if needed. Sincerely, /,~,,:r._t:-4." ~A4J Akemichi Y ama~ 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-4525 Attachment # 1 : Discussion Attachment #2: Copy of the cancelled check, payable to E&M Tree Service, Dated April 25,2014 2 Attachments 1-158 Attachment # 1 Discussion: We have been living at 6320 Rio Linda Drive for the last 21 years continuously, and we liked the rustic atmosphere in our backyard provided by those trees on the other side of the fence. The old wooden fence and trees was the playground of squirrels. We could hear birds chirping in the trees. Occasionally we saw raccoons in the tree. Some of our plants enjoyed shades provided by trees during a hot summer. There were no reasons for us to ask the back neighbor to cut down trees, and in the last 21 years we have never asked the back neighbor to cut trees down. So, why would we request Sam Hassan to cut trees down? No, we never requested Sam Hassan to cut trees down for us. During the course of the conversation on January 25, Sam Hassan described what he was doing and what he was going to do about trees on his yard. He said cutting trees would provide more sunshine to our backyard, and help plants to grow. But these were his words, not ours. Because trees were his, there were no reasons for us to object his plan. Some of the trees were butting up against the old fence at the base and had to be removed in order to install a new fence, which Sam was planning to do. Below is the photo of our backyard taken on January 25, in which you can see a tree at left, whose branches were already cut off, indicating the tree cutting activity had begun already starting at the East end. Please note that even if trees were left intact, the second floor of the remodel would be visible between tree trunks. 3 Attachments 1-159 Chase Online -Check Searc}> llesults Page 1of1 Chase Online Friday, May 30, 2014 Check Detalls for Check Number-~~~ Post Date 04/2912014 Amount $500.00 Account number Routing number ~~ ~4-~ Check Images (Front and Back) .-: I i. . g . f i; . ; AKEMICHI YAMADA YOSHIKO YAMADA 8320 RIO LINDA DR. 310 1144 415211 RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA 80276 -·· .. 0 ~ ~ ~ r· t.-, ~ f '}\ of ../\ This information is provided for your convenience and does not replace your mont11ly account statement(s), which are the official records of your accounts and does not replace any other notice we send you . JPMorgan chase Bank. N.A Member FDIC © 2014 JPMorgan Chase & Co . httos://resources.chase.com/commonui/javascripts/nisi/ui/htrnl/Print.html 5/30/2014 Attachments 1-160 Attachments 1-161 Attachments 1-162 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: Raymond Nuber <raymond.nuber@cox.net> Monday, June 30, 2014 2:20 AM To: Leza Mikhail Cc: raymond.nuber@cox.net Subject: RE: My additional concerns about the application for a Height Variation, grading, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Attachments: Ray Nuber concerns re 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Height Variation request 30 June 2014 .docx Raymond M Nuber 27919 Alvarez Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 30 June 2014 Ms. Mikhail Associate Planner, Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 lezam@rpv.com Dear Ms. Mikhail : This letter extends my written concerns regarding the application for a Height Variation, grading, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, relative to my letter to you dated 17 May 2014. I understand the applicant has submitted revised plans to the city which reduce the square footage, balconies, and height. Although I recognize these changes move the plans in the right direction, below I express my continued concerns that, in summary, the owner's requests still don't honor our city's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits. Specifically, the revised proposed modifications to this house would continue to: 1. result in a house with a Scale, bulk and mass, at more than double the square footage, that is not similar to the surrounding residences, 2. exceed the 16 foot "by-right" structure height, 3. infringe upon the privacy for the abutting residences, as well as perhaps other residences given the proposed height of this house. 4. not be compatible, as a two story plan, with the vast majority of other homes in the area, which are predominately single story ranch homes, 1 Attachments 1-163 5. not provide open space between the surrounding residences in the area's style, 6. not be compatible with our neighborhood's character, which is dominated by a vast tract of homes built in 1962 from just a handful of single story ranch designs with average square footages of less than 1,800 square feet. This plan (still) greatly exceeds the height, bulk and mass of the homes in our neighborhood, 7. not enhance the rhyme of the streetscape. The house's bulk, mass, and height would break the rhythm of not only Villa Rosa Drive, but all the streets within view of this house, including those above Villa Rosa Drive such as my street, Alvarez Drive, 8. and not respect the views from my property, including the ocean views that are a significant contributor to the value of my home, were a primary reason I bought my house, and a significant reason that I have chosen to continue living there. Hillside neighborhoods such as East Los Verdes are a limited natural resource of value to all residents. Our city's Ordinances are purposed to protect these unique and irreplaceable assets, in part by limiting additions to residences before these can encroach onto a view. I'm particularly alarmed by the amount of cumulative view impairment that would be caused by this house if similar additions are permitted on other parcels. As I stated in my 17 May letter, allowing exceptions to the city's handbooks or guidelines, such as those proposed for this home addition, would be setting a very bad precedent, forever upsetting the well-designed balance of privacy and views in our city. I urge the city to understand that organized opposition is significant. Again, please don't waste our city's precious resources to resolve this opposition through protracted due process while this proposal clearly doesn't honor our city's handbooks nor guidelines. I urge our city leadership to respect our city's Proposition M Ordinance concerning View Preservation. This ordinance has withstood many challenges, and should withstand this applicant's challenge just was well, especially since the proposed structure would significantly impair views from other homes in East Los Verdes. I recommend our city's Planning Commission to reject this applicate with Prejudice. Not rejecting this application would invite the McMansionization of East Los Verdes, and perhaps many other neighborhoods of our city. I look forward to the opportunity to publically summarize my opposition verbally during your hearing on 8 July. Sincerely, Raymond M Nuber From: Raymond Nuber [mailto:raymond.nuber@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 4:05 PM 2 Attachments 1-164 To: 'lezam@rpv.com' Cc: 'raymond .nuber@cox.net'; 'Jim_Kohler@aol.com'; 'akemichi@verizon.net'; 'donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com'; 'wsheh@tectoweld.com'; 'kevin@c2services.com'; 'dellandsteve@cox.net' Subject: My concerns about the application for a Height Variation, grading, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Raymond M Nuber 27919 Alvarez Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 May 17, 2014 Ms. Mikhail Associate Planner, Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 le zam@rpv.com Dear Ms. Mikhail: I have lived at 27919 Alvarez Drive continuously since I bought my house in 1997, and I am writing to express my concerns about the application for a Height Variation, grading, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Collectively, the owner's requests don't honor our city's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits. Specifically, the proposed modifications to this house: 1. would result in a house with a bulk and mass, at more than double the square footage, that is not similar to the neighboring homes; this should be strongly discouraged, 2. exceed the 16 foot "by-right" height, 3. would infringe upon the privacy for the abutting residences, as well as perhaps other residences given the proposed height of this house. The privacy and view violations would be further exacerbated by the proposed balconies, 4. are not compatible with the vast majority of other homes in the area, which are predominately single story ranch homes, 5. are not compatible with our neighborhood's character, which is dominated by a vast tract of homes built in 1962 from just a handful of single story ranch designs with average square footages of less than 1,800 square feet. This plan greatly exceeds the height, bulk and mass of the homes in our neighborhood, 3 Attachments 1-165 6. would not enhance the rhyme of the streetscape. The house's bulK, mass, and height would break the rhythm of not only Villa Rosa Drive, but all the streets within view of this house, including those above Villa Rosa Drive such as my street, Alvarez Drive, 7. and do not respect the views from my property, including the ocean views that are a significant contributor to the value of my home, were a primary reason I bought my house, and a significant reason that I have chosen to continue living there. Allowing exceptions to the city's handbooks or guidelines, such as those proposed for this home addition, would be setting a very bad precedent, forever upsetting the well-designed balance of privacy and views in our city. I'm aware of at least one petition circulating with the names of many affected neighbors. Other than Peachtree Trust, I'm not aware of any significant support for this proposal in our community. Realize that the organized opposition of the affected neighbors could be significant. Please don't waste our city's precious resources to resolve this opposition through protracted due process while this proposal clearly doesn't honor our city's handbooks nor guidelines. I urge our city leadership to respect our city's handbooks or guidelines; these have served our city well. To not hold firm to these would be the crossing of the Rubicon, ushering in an era of "homes on steroids". I urge our city's leadership to not make the sort of mistake other cities already regret having made in this regard. I look forward to the opportunity to publically summarize my opposition verbally during your hearing on May 27th. Sincerely, Raymond M Nuber 4 Attachments 1-166 Raymond M Nuber 27919 Alvarez Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 30 June 2014 Ms. Mikhail Associate Planner, Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 lezam@rpv.com Dear Ms. Mikhail: This letter extends my written concerns regarding the application for a Height Variation, grading, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, relative to my letter to you dated 17 May 2014. I understand the applicant has submitted revised plans to the city which reduce the square footage, balconies, and height. Although I recognize these changes move the plans in the right direction, below I express my continued concerns that, in summary, the owner's requests still don't honor our city's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits. Specifically, the revised proposed modifications to this house would continue to: 1. result in a house with a Scale, bulk and mass, at more than double the square footage, that is not similar to the surrounding residences, 2. exceed the 16 foot "by-right" structure height, 3. infringe upon the privacy for the abutting residences, as well as perhaps other residences given the proposed height of this house. 4. not be compatible, as a two story plan, with the vast majority of other homes in the area, which are predominately single story ranch homes, 5. not provide open space between the surrounding residences in the area's style, 6. not be compatible with our neighborhood's character, which is dominated by a vast tract of homes built in 1962 from just a handful of single story ranch designs with average square footages of less than 1,800 square feet. This plan (still) greatly exceeds the height, bulk and mass of the homes in our neighborhood, Attachments 1-167 Ms. Mikhail [Date] Page 2 7. not enhance the rhyme of the streetscape. The house's bulk, mass, and height would break the rhythm of not only Villa Rosa Drive, but all the streets within view of this house, including those above Villa Rosa Drive such as my street, Alvarez Drive, 8. and not respect the views from my property, including the ocean views that are a significant contributor to the value of my home, were a primary reason I bought my house, and a significant reason that I have chosen to continue living there. Hillside neighborhoods such as East Los Verdes are a limited natural resource of value to all residents. Our city's Ordinances are purposed to protect these unique and irreplaceable assets, in part by limiting additions to residences before these can encroach onto a view. I'm particularly alarmed by the amount of cumulative view impairment that would be caused by this house if similar additions are permitted on other parcels. As I stated in my 17 May letter, allowing exceptions to the city's handbooks or guidelines, such as those proposed for this home addition, would be setting a very bad precedent, forever upsetting the well-designed balance of privacy and views in our city. I urge the city to understand that organized opposition is significant. Again, please don't waste our city's precious resources to resolve this opposition through protracted due process while this proposal clearly doesn't honor our city's handbooks nor guidelines. I urge our city leadership to respect our city's Proposition M Ordinance concerning View Preservation. This ordinance has withstood many challenges, and should withstand this applicant's challenge just was well, especially since the proposed structure would significantly impair views from other homes in East Los Verdes. I recommend our city's Planning Commission to reject this applicate with Prejudice. Not rejecting this application would invite the McMansionization of East Los Verdes, and perhaps many other neighborhoods of our city. I look forward to the opportunity to publically summarize my opposition verbally during your hearing on 8 July. Sincerely, Raymond M Nuber Attachments 1-168 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Ms. Mikhail, The Glenn Family <samuel.glenn2@verizon.net> Sunday, June 29, 2014 6:20 PM Leza Mikhail; Carolglenn; sb.glenn@verizon.net Glenn's 6-29-2014 response: Compatibility Review (Case N. ZON2014-00064) Response CompatibityAssessment -Case No ZON2014-0064.pdf Attached is our response to the revised inputs to Case No. ZON2014-00064 of the the proposed addition at 6321 Villa Rosa. Please see the attached signed letter for consideration in the ongoing review and evaluation of the compatibility of the project. We look forward to the public hearing scheduled for July 8, 2014 and will provide our verbal inputs to the revised proposal as well. 19 year residents of RPV, Sam and Carol Glenn 1 Attachments 1-169 I I I ~ I ! I I Ms Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner Planning Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 June 29, 2014 Subject: Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case N. ZON2014- 00064) Dear Ms. Mikhail, I appreciated the Planning Commission's recommendation from the May 27, 2014 meeting "to allow the applicant time to redesign the project to address project impacts related to privacy, neighborhood compatibility and view impairment identified by Staff and surrounding residents". After reviewing the revised flag silhouette and other material, I believe the project still fails to meet the neighborhood compatibility and privacy issue as raised by neighbors like myself and my wife. The revised design including the garage is still 3 ,886 square feet in size. As has been stated in previous correspondence, how can 3,886 square feet project be considered proportionate (compatible) to the approximate average 1800 square foot houses adjacent to the location for the project? From the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, Design Tips, Section II, Architectural Styles and Materials, Item F, Apparent Bulk and Mass, page 28, paragraph 1 state, "The bulk and mass of a new residence or an addition to an existing residence should be similar to neighboring structures, not overwhelming or disproportionate in size. A design that is out of character with the neighborhood is strongly discouraged." As one of the commissioners noted in the meeting of May 27, 2014, if this project is agreed to, the Planning Commission should write go ahead and prepare to write a lot more variances for this neighborhood. He has foreseen the significance of how approval of this project by the City will significantly impact future changes in this Los Verdes neighborhood. The revised design still raises privacy concerns for those of us living within the 100 foot radius area east of the project. In 1962 the original developers creatively thoughtfully created a terraced hill design in this community which offers homeowners privacy and views. Approval of this project enables views into our single story kitchen, living room and bedroom windows from their second story windows. In the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, Design Tips, Section II, Architectural Styles and Materials, item B, Height of Structures, page 25, paragraph 7, which states, "The height of a structure should not result in a significant loss or infringement of privacy on a neighboring property." In addition, the second story windows look out across my backyard. Trees are not a sufficient long term privacy screen because they can be removed at a later date. Approval of this project will dramatically change the Neighborhood Compatibility with the blessings of this Planning Commission and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. We chose this neighborhood 19 years ago for the single story houses with open vertical space. This project and the Commissions approval will make this neighborhood a target for developers to put in more two story McMansions with every home sell. In the near future, the neighborhood will not reflect the single story Attachments 1-170 environment what many of us moved into this neighborhood for. It leaves the existing residents with a simple choice of move out of the area or joining the McMansion build up expans10n. Relocation out of this area is a sad thought for long term residents who have raised a family, supported the local community and have looked forward to retirement in this wonderful neighborhood. We hope you will consider the families that continue to demonstrate living compatibly with our neighbors, enjoying the rural/semi-rural character of our community as established when our city was founded as you make your ruling. ~r . _0 ~,rJ+I-~ SamGI~~~ .. J\J_,,~~ Attachments 1-171 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Date: June 29, 2014 Kevin < kevin@c2services.com > Sunday, June 29, 2014 7:21 PM Leza Mikhail; PlanningCommission May 27 hearing follow up on 6321 Villa Rosa height variation Hamilton Presentation on 6321 Villa Rosa May 27, 2014 Hearing.pdf To: Leza Mikhail & Planning Commissioners From: Kevin Hamilton 6309 Villa Rosa Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: May 27th hearing follow up on 6321 Villa Rosa Height Variation Mary Beth and I would like to thank all the Commissioners for their time. We would like to especially thank those Commissioners that gave up a part of their Memorial Day holiday to visit us. We continue to extend an open invitation to any of the Commissioners that would like to visit or re-visit us to review the issues we have raised. Since my presentation covered a lot of material in a short time, I'm attaching a .pdf of my PowerPoint for your convenience. Finally, a couple of issues arose at the May 27th hearing that should to be clarified. 1) The issue of street width came up in regards to the 5 bedroom home, parking and streetscape (hearing video time 1 hr. 26 min). The street width of Villa Rosa is eight feet (8') narrower than Alvarez, Manero, Centuria and the main portion of Rio Linda Drives. Quantitative measurements were taken gutter-to-gutter via 100' steel tape and are provided below. 1 Attachments 1-172 2) The claim by Mr. Hassan that Mr. Yamada agreed that Mr. Hassan should cut down his trees is disingenuous (hearing video time 1 hr. 13 min.). As the Commissioners are aware, Municipal Code 17 .02.04.B.4 required Peachtree Family Trust to reduce all vegetation to the lesser of 16' or roof level for the height variation application. This essentially required them to cut down large trees or leave barren 16' stumps. The code is provided below for you convenience. Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance. The city shall issue no conditional use permit, variance, height variation, building permit or other entitlement to construct a structure, or to add livable area to a structure on a parcel utilized for residential purposes, unless the owner removes that part oj the foliage on the lot exceeding sixteen feet in height or the ridge line of the primary structure, whichever is lower, that significantly impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel. 2 Attachments 1-173 Attachments 1-174 ~ = z uj ~ ~ I-ii 0 ~ rJ'l = ~ Q ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ I-ii ~ ~ < u z u IJJ < ~ ~ ~ I-ii ~ z ex: 0 < ~ = 0 0 z I-ii ~ = ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ < ~ z 0 0 N ~ ~ ~ I-ii I-ii rJ'l z ~ rJ'l ~ u rJ'l 0 rJ'l 0 < ~~ ~ 0 I-ii ~ z > z~ rJ'l ~ z< z Cl) ~ rJ'l < I-ii Q.c ~u 0 rJ'l ~ Q.c rJ'l ~ I-ii ~ o~ 8: ~ ~ rJ'l ~ ~ = ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 0 ;J u rJ'l < ~ ;J ~ rJ'l ~ ~ ex: u ~ Q ~ rJ'l ~ ~ ;J ~Q < I-ii ~ ;J ~ > ~= ~ rJ'l 0 ~ z :s ~ ~ rJ'l ~o I-ii 0 ~ ~; ~ ~~ ~ = ~ ~< Q.c 0 ~ ~o ~ ~ Cl) ~ o= ~ ~ rJ'l u 0 ~= u u es ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ N ~ I-ii ~ ~~ 0 ex: I-ii ~~ ~ ~~ ~ rJ'l rJ'l z rJ'l rJ'l ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~o ~ = == = =~ = ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ Attachments 1-175 THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE IS GROSSLY TOO LARGE Home Size Comparison of 20 nearest homes • THE STRUCTURE IS NEARLY DOUBLE THE A VERA GE (2,421 Sq. Ft.) •THE STRUCTURE IS BEYOND 3 SIGMA IN SIZE (4,278 Sq. Ft.) 5,000 4,500 ~ 4,000 ci-3,500 ~ 3,000 ~ 2,500 ·u; 2,000 Cl) E 1,500 ~ 1,000 500 0 Home Size Comparison (per Planning Staff Report) 1-----I- ~ - '--=-I ,_ ... ·~Em IBBaR~ 1-1 1-1 1--1 1-1 1-1 1--1 1-l-1 I- 1-1 ·-1--1 I-I- 1-1-1 I- r-- w '''''''''''''''~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$$ f,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~§§~~~~~~~~~-~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v v ~ v v A~re$ 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 u:: ~ 3,000 ~ 2,500 iii ~ 2,000 0 J: 1,500 1,000 500 0 Home Size Comparison (per Planning Staff Report) Proposed Average Attachments 1-176 THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE IS GROSSLY TOO LARGE •THE STRUCTURE IS DOUBLE THE AVERAGE (2,201 Sq. Ft.) • THE STRUCTURE IS WELL OVER 3 SIGMA IN SIZE (3,539 Sq. Ft.) -:-u: C" en -Q) C> as :i... as Cl J: -·;: Q) ~ en Q) E 0 J: Home Size Comparison 500 Foot Notification Area (Villa Rosa, Rio Linda, Centuria, Monero & Alvarez Drives) 5,ooo J , -"l .---I 4,500 ,-.:'.! ... Ml 4,000 3,500 3,000 -11 11-11 -I --- 2,500 ~ n II "---...--HI - 2,000 1,500 - 1,000 500 ·•"I-------11-1 1- 0 -.,II 1111 ll,ll 1J u .11 .11 11 111 .11 11 11 .11 11 ,11 11 II 11 ")' ".")' 11 11 llJI II 11 11 11 11 11 ","." 1111 0 111111 11 11 11 11 111 ",II II II II 11 II"," II lf 0 ll 0 ll II IJ II II",".""," II Iii "," II","~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ .~ -~ -~ .~ -~ .~ .~ -~ .~ ~~~~~$$$$$~~~efefefefefefef ~~,,~~~~~~###~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~##~~~~~/////// ro"3 ron;, ro":) ro"j ro ro ro (ij (ij ~ ro ~ <::, ~~ ~ro n-" r'.>n;, ~co ro'l:> ,...co ,...<::, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'l' "\; "\; Address Attachments 1-177 Attachments 1-178 Attachments 1-179 Attachments 1-180 Attachments 1-181 Attachments 1-182 Attachments 1-183 Attachments 1-184 Attachments 1-185 § ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ )... ~ ~ Et ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ § (/) :s u ~ ~ ~ c ~ ;s ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • • • • • Attachments 1-186 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Joel Rojas Sunday, June 29, 2014 7:09 PM Leza Mikhail FW: Opposition to 6321 Villa Rosa Drive remodel From: Dell Fortune <dellandsteve@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 1:27:14 PM To: PlanningCommission Subject: Opposition to 6321 Villa Rosa Drive remodel June 29, 2014 Dear RPV Commissioners, We would like to go on file as being opposed to the project at 6321 Villa Rosa. The building is massive and it does not conform to the neighborhood. Our neighborhood is made up of primarily small, one story ranch type houses. The proposed house will block several ocean views which will devalue their property, cause privacy issues for surrounding neighbors, and will generally be an eyesore. At the original hearing, it was brought up that small houses like ours are not desirable. I beg to differ with you. Our population is aging, and there comes a point when people have difficulty navigating stairs and generally maintaining large homes that they no longer need. We were living in a two story house three years ago. After a few medical problems, we decided it was time to move to a one story home. We don't want, nor can we afford a large home. It took us over six months to find a suitable small, one story house in RPV. We hope the Commissioners will carefully consider the opposition to this project, and deny the variances requested. Sincerely, Steve Nash & Dell Fortune 6334 Rio Linda Drive 1 Attachments 1-187 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Ms. Leza Mikhail, Akemichi Yamada <akemichi@verizon.net> Sunday, June 29, 2014 5:48 PM Leza Mikhail Comments on the revised remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa (Reference: 6321 Villa Rosa, Case# CASE #ZON2014-00064) As residents of the East Los Verdes neighborhood, we are keenly interested in the outcome of the remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa. This is the first permit application for the non-single-story design in this immediate neighborhood since the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook was adopted in 2003. The decision on this case will set the tone of and the precedent to the future remodeling activities in the entire neighborhood. It may be inevitable that this neighborhood will be transformed into a mixture of older original houses and newer remodeled houses. However, it is essential that newer remodeled houses blend amicably among existing houses, and the streetscape is enhanced. The two-story design as modified is still too bulky, and is not compatible with the neighborhood. It breaks up the streetscape of the narrow Villa Rosa street. Windows of the proposed second floor still infringe privacy of adjacent/abutting neighbors. Elevated roof-lines take away precious views being enjoyed by neighbors. It is a difficult task for the Planning Commission to arrive at an appropriate remodel satisfying both the desire of the home owner to expand and the desires of other neighbors to protect their neighborhood, views and privacies. However, we ask the Planning Commission to deny the remodel as currently modified and to recommend further modifications. The total square footage should be more reasonable and appropriate for the smalllot. We are hoping that the eventual design approach of the remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa will expand the first floor square footage, significantly reduce the need for the second floor, significantly reduce the vertical dimensions, eliminate privacy infringement and protect precious views being enjoyed by neighbors. Sincerely, Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada 6320 Rio Linda Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 Attachments 1-188 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: jimksact@aol.com Sunday, June 29, 2014 8:19 AM Leza Mikhail Villa Rosa Plans As the owner of a house on Alvarez Drive, the second story plans for Villa Rosa cause a significant blockage of my views. This in turn causes lost value and enjoyment of my property. Please remember that trees come and go BUT blockage from height variances do not! You are essentially giving a view to this applicant and taking away mine that I bought the house with over 40 years ago. That is against the ordinances that the city has in place. Thank you, Evelyn Kohler 27925 Alvarez Drive Sent from AOL Mobile Mail 1 Attachments 1-189 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Date: June 30, 2014 Akemichi Yamada <akemichi@verizon .net> Monday, June 30, 2014 11:13 AM Leza Mikhail Additional comments on the revised remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Impacts from revised remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa_June 30.doc To: Leza Mikhail & Planning Commissioners From: Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-4525 Re : Case# ZON2014-00064 Dear Ms. Leza Mikhail, We would like to submit the attached additional comments on the revised remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa . Please include this in the staff report. We would like to extend an open invitation to you and any of commissioners that would like to visit us to assess the remodel from our house. If we are not at home at the time of your visit, please feel free to come into our back yard. Sincerely, Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada 1 Attachments 1-190 To: Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada, 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-544-4525, akemichi@verizon.net Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Subject: Impacts on 6320 Rio Linda Drive from the revised remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Date: June 30, 2014 Dear Ms. Mikhail, The revised 2-story remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, which is abutting our property at 6320 Rio Linda Drive, still has very significant impacts on us as described below. We would like to have the City to deny the height variation request, and to have the remodel staying within the 16-foot by-right height limit. (1) Infringement of Our Privacy. The revised remodel is still the 2-story design as shown below in Photo 1. There will be 3 windows at the back of the second floor of the remodel, whose sizes are 60"x54", 48"x24", and 36"x24". Anyone looking out of any of these windows will have a full view of our property (the back yard, sun room, dining room, master bedroom and master bath room). On clear days, there will be a great view of the ocean and the Santa Monica Mountain looking over our property. Because of this, the possibility is great that someone is looking out of these windows often, and the probability is great that our privacy is infringed often. We are retired, and are spending tremendous amount of time in our sun room and back yard. The privacy in this area is very important for us. (2) Excessive bulk and mass The size of the proposed two-story remodeling is too massive for the neighborhood where the average square footage is around 1900. The 2-story design will disturb the rhyme of the street landscape of the narrow Villa Rosa Street (about 28ft from curb to curb). The 2-story design is too overwhelming and visually invasive, and will result in a substantial loss of "air and light" for all neighbors. The 2-story design is not compatible with the neighborhood. (3) Taking away precious views from neighbors Many of us enjoy the setting sun hovering over the horizon. The height above 16 feet will take away views being enjoyed by neighbors. Page 1 of2 Attachments 1-191 Photo 1, the revised remodel looking from our back yard, 6320 Rio Linda Drive Page 2 of2 Attachments 1-192 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: June 30, 2014 Rubyjulie44@aol .com Monday, June 30, 2014 11:30 AM akemichi@verizon .net; rubyjulie@msn.com Leza Mikhail Fwd : letter to commission regarding 6321 Villa Rosa Drive To: Planning commission , City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30740 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Palos Verdes , Ca.90275 Gentlemen : In 1973 our city was founded on a basic tenet of preserving our rural and semi-rural character. The planning Commission was established two years later and tasked with the duty of ensuring this founding principle would be up held . To strengthen this tenet, city voters passed measure Min 1989 . Th is measure established" neighborhood compatibility". Measure M has enabled RPV to remain RPV . lt has held rampant over development and 11 Mansionization 11 at bay. Renovation on the scale proposed at 6321 Villa Rosa site is exactly the excessive 11 McMansionization" that has ruined cities and communities around our area and our country . It runs counter to the basic character of our neighborhood of Los Verdes . The style , excessive bulk and mass of the second story proposed, are out of place here . The privacy issues that would be created by this structure are of extreme concern. The devaluation of surrounding homes which would occur with construction of a house this big, in addition to robbing neighbors of whatever views or vistas they currently have, is tantamount to equity robbery. The applicant has applied to build a disproportionately large house on one of east Los Verdes' smallest lots . While the footprint of the structure may be just at the allowable coverage percentage, the second story would have almost the same square footage as the proposed first floor addition. This solid two story block will result in a loss of air and light to its neighbors. Contrary to what the name may imply, Villa Rosa Drive is a curved, inclined street ending in a cul-de-sac ; it is already one of the narrowest streets in east Los Verdes . Residents already have issues with cars parked on both sides of the street, reducing the street from 30 to 20 feet, at its narrowest. This problem would only worsen the additional traffic of a major construction remodel project. The resulting chaos would be intolerable We sincerely hope the Planning Commission carefully considers the issues outlined here , as well as the adverse effects the project would have on ocean views, street scape, excessive height, bulk and mass and privacy of the neighbors . We also hope you weigh the v iews of current residents and homeowners against what appears to be a corporate--fueled project of inappropriate size, character, intent and design. With respect , Julie Owens Rice 6300 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes 1 Attachments 1-193 June 26, 2014 To The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission: RECEIVED JUN 3 0 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT In 1973 our city was founded on a basic tenet of preserving our rural and semi-rural character. The Planning Commission was formed shortly thereafter to ensure that this principle is upheld. In addition, our city's residents passed Measure M in 1989 requiring "neighborhood compatibility". This important measure is what enables Rancho Palos Verdes to remain Rancho Palos Verdes and prevents over development which destroys the city's character. The proposed renovations at 6321 Villa Rosa are not compatible with the neighborhood.· The excessive bulk and mass are totally out of place. This bulk and mass creates privacy issues which are very concerning for neighbors. Even with the revised plans, the applicant is requesting a height variance which is excessive. This proposed house blocks ocean views of several neighbors, which devalues their property. This "McMansion" is being built on one of the smallest lots in the area. It will create a substantial loss of "air and light" for all the neighbors. Villa Rosa Drive is a narrow 27' '9" street. The street is eight (8) feet narrower than Centuria, Monero, Alvarez and the main portion of Rio Linda. The narrow, inclined character of the street makes the street susceptible to a closed in, canyon like feel if a two story home is added. The two story structure will destroy the existing open streetscape. We sincerely hope you carefully consider the issues we have with this project. The bulk and mass, excessive height, privacy, blocking of ocean views, streetscape and ownership are all issues of concern and need to be addressed. Respectfully, Concerned Residents of Los Verdes (signature attachment) Attachments 1-194 Name Address Date Signature ~n~I( o.w~ ~ ~d~ le 1 '2--</ f?t'" Luvl~ 0 C! (l.P if ~b-'l/1'/ /--J-..:~~~ ~/. NJb£< 22111· Alve--nzc-Dr. fJ!/,h •+--Ir--'~~ \f l\4 ttAJ} L--\ ~ b 1 L() \[\ LLA ll-0 SA /7{t \ hfz_1hl/- We.Ylrf-j L1'0L 6 320 Vlflll t<osCt U(~ ~ .flKE vn t ( H r YA J¥'AV(A 6-J 2-0 R1 o L/ AIP A rpR fJW,$L /{., ;~ . · ~~~~ f/3t>R 61~~~'(-~~~ k -e_ V· t l"J /la....,r}'I) / fPv1 (;' )>(J 9 ~I //&V j?.e-S-q (' /-z_ 'l//r ~ •• b-S-07 ~~ L,·IA_~O<_ '/r-~Vy ~~ !it!£ /ll.d111d. &3:07 1,io L!1ik-~ tppt ~·---------'---~~ /'c-<A.de_ /3 , j ftd:_ ;< 7 9 JG ~ f.YL. O &-.:Jo --l'Y C ~ 13. ~ « ( ArQ..L Y0 U.C (JNll?i Attachments 1-195 Date: June 30, 2014 To: Leza Mikhail Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 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 Ms. Mikhail, RECEIVED JUN 30 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT After reviewing the revised design and observing the re-flagged property, we request that the height variation be denied. Our opposition to the height variation is based on substantial concerns with the redesign Those concerns are outlined below. 1. Excessive bulk and mass The redesign still results in a 3,886 sq. ft. structure. The oversized structure is being built on the smallest lot in the 20 nearest homes. The excessive size of this 5 bedroom is provided in the graph below for comparative purposes with the nearest 20 homes. 4,500 4,000 3,500 ~ 3,000 ~ 2,500 - GI .!::! "' 2,000 GI E 0 1,500 ::c 1,000 500 . 0 Home Size Comparison (20 nearest homes) Proposed Average Attachments 1-196 It should also be noted that the redesign is still above 3 sigma in size (sq. ft.) for the homes on Villa Rosa, Rio Linda, Centuria, Monero and Alvarez Drives within the 500' notification area. 2. Violation of Privacy A review of the revised plans shows that a number of windows have been installed on the north side of the second story. Among those is a 60"x54" sliding window on the east side of the north facing second story. This allows for angled viewing of our living space and patio. Our privacy concerns remain unabated. 3. Incompatibility with the existing neighborhood The redesign still incorporates a second story in a neighborhood dominated by single story ranch homes. The redesign still yields a structure that dwarfs the adjacent homes with the structure only being reduced in height by approximately 1.9 feet. The front remains esthetically the same with the appearance of two balconies, one regular and one faux. Architecturally it remains incompatible with the neighborhood in style and design. 4. Destruction of views, streetscape & open air space The second story still blocks our view of the ocean, horizon and sky. It is also a direct affront to the open space feeling that is present today from our living room, dining room and patio (Photograph 1) .. Photograph 1. Dinning room view. Camera: Nikon D5100, Lens: Nikor 18-55, Lens setting: 34mm (35mm camera focal length 5lmm), Lens height: 61 inches, Date: 06- 29-14 (#385) Attachments 1-197 Since Villa Rosa is a narrow, curved, inclined street, the second story structure will significantly reduce the open, spacious feeling and streetscape of the neighborhood. The structure dominates the skyline and still dwarfs adjacent homes. See Photograph 2. Photograph 2. Street view. Camera: Nikon D5100, Lens: Nikor 18-55, Lens setting: 28mm (35mm camera focal length 42mm), Lens height: 68 inches, Date: 06-29-14 (#358) 5. Additional considerations The redesign does not allay the impact of property devaluation associated with this non-conforming property. As previous hearing testimony pointed out, there is noise pollution associated with two story structures. Specifically, noise propagation over natural boundaries which are mitigated with a single story ranch home but not with a two story structure. This is especially true when the large windows on the front and rear of the home can be opened. Finally, the revised structure still furthers mansionization creep by setting a precedent, increasing the neighborhood home size average and reduces quality of life by increasing population density. Attachments 1-198 P.C. Minutes (May 27, 2014 P.C. Meeting) Attachments 1-199 CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Golden Cove Center Master Si n Pro ram review 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the p r earing to June 24, 2014, as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chair n Nelson. Approved without objection. 2. Halona Point Consultants UP Revision Case No. ZON2013-00476 : 30940 Hawthorne Bou ard recused himself from this item, and left the dais. Director Rojas sented the staff report, explaining that given concerns by staff, the neighbors, the Planning Commission, the applicant has withdrawn the application and the ck-up has been removed. Co missioner Emenhiser returned to the dais. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014- 00064): 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She showed a front (east) elevation, which showed the proposed residence as seen from the street, and explained that staff had concerns regarding bulk and mass as seen from the street as well as some neighboring properties. She stated that staff was requesting the Commission consider these impacts and direct the applicant to lower the ridgeline of the house in order to reduce the bulk and mass impacts in terms of heights. In addition, staff was hoping that some of the additional second story setbacks could be accommodated along the sides of the proposed project. She also displayed the rear (west) elevation and noted staff's concerns of bulk and mass as seen from the neighboring property directly behind this property. She reviewed the issues of bulk and mass, privacy, and view impairment of several of the neighboring properties and noted staff's conclusions, as discussed in the staff report. She explained the applicant was hoping to hear the concerns of staff, the neighbors, and the Commission and continue the public hearing to be allowed time to address these issues. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff how many residents were notified in the 500 foot radius. Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2014 Page 2 Attachments 1-200 Associate Planner Mikhail answered that 206 residents were notified, noting the number is high because there is a townhome development across Hawthorne Boulevard that is in the radius. Commissioner Emenhiser noted that in some of the correspondence received by the Commission there are pictures of the impact the proposed addition will have on their sunset view. He asked staff if a sunset view is a protected view. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that if the sunset is where the sun meets the horizon line, it may be a protected view. However, if it is a sunset that is higher than the horizon line and the horizon line is not in the view, it would not be a protected view per the Height Variation Guidelines. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to display the aerial photo and to identify the existing two-story homes in the neighborhood . Associate Planner Mikhail displayed the photo and pointed out the two-story homes . Chairman Leon opened the public hearing . Sam Hassan (applicant) stated he and his wife and children are excited to build their dream home and move into this neighborhood. He explained his need for a large home, as he has a large family with five children. He stated that he is willing to do whatever is necessary to be in compliance with the codes of the City, and he was available for any questions from the Commission. Christine Thome (6329 Villa Rosa Drive) stated her home is directly next door to the applicant, and she has no problem with the proposed addition. David Yih-Hu Hsu (6409 Rio Linda Drive) stated that over the past twenty years he has noticed the traffic and parking situations in the neighborhood have become more and more of a problem. He felt that when a home increases from 1,400 to 4,000 square feet, he would like to see an increase in the garage parking so that the parking does not overflow into the street. With such a large family, additional cars will soon be at the property and he felt they should be parked in the garage to every extent possible. Akemichi Yamada (6320 Rio Linda Drive) stated his property is immediately behind the applicant's home. He showed a photo he said was taken from his rear yard, and stated the proposed addition is too massive and will tower over his property. He stated the applicant will have a direct view into his living quarters from the proposed balconies at the rear of the addition. He felt the privacy from his backyard, enclosed patio, dining room, master bedroom, and master bathroom will be taken away. He then showed photos taken from the enclosed patio, master bedroom, and master bathroom and pointed out what he felt was his loss of privacy. Lastly, he showed a photo he said is of the main ocean view to be gained from the proposed second floor. He noted that there may be a great temptation for the owner to cut down additional trees to gain more of an Planning Commission Minutes May 27 , 2014 Page 3 Attachments 1-201 ocean view. He did not think that trees were a reliable means for providing adequate privacy year round, and it takes time for trees to grow tall enough to provide this privacy . It stated that additional second story setbacks, as much as 22 feet more, will not significantly reduce the privacy impact. He felt a reasonable solution is a single-story design, and asked the Commission to deny the remodel as submitted. San Glenn (6308 Rio Linda Drive) explained he moved here from a community of tall, full, compact use of the lots, so he understood what this neighborhood could become. He stated he came to this neighborhood because it is a single-story community with open space. He felt this proposed project is the beginning of mcmansions, and requests for several large additions will follow. He explained that from his kitchen window he will be looking at the back of this proposed second story, and it will look like a very large box, and a similar project built on the other side of this will look like a giant box. He did not think this proposed addition was compatible with the neighborhood, and explained that the existing two-story homes may look large from the street, but because of their location, appear much smaller from the neighboring homes. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Glenn if he was aware of when the three existing two-story homes in the neighborhood were built. Mr. Glenn answered that all three were built before he moved in nearly nineteen years ago. Steve Nash (6334 Rio Linda Drive) stated he was a real estate appraiser for 34 years, and in appraising single family residences conformity of the homes in the neighborhood has the most important impact on values, as well as upgrading the interior, exterior, and view amenities. He felt that the proposed home will have a negative impact on the neighborhood values, as it would be a two-story residence which is non-conforming. He felt a new upgrade to the single family home would be most appropriate, and would benefit other homes in the area as well. He therefore opposed the proposed construction. Dr. Eva Muchnick (6307 Rio Linda Drive) felt the current vacant home located at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive looks like it is ready to be demolished and a new one built in its place. She felt the proposed home is out of proportion with the surrounding homes in the neighborhood, and though a precedent may have been set by a large home built on Villa Rosa Drive, that does not justify another, or others to be built. She stated that besides the obvious lack of neighborhood compatibility, her main concerns are the egregious loss of privacy to the adjacent neighbors, as well as health concerns. She felt that everyone will be exposed to noise and dust pollution, and therefore asked the Commission deny the proposed project and try to reach a more reasonable solution with the applicant. Evelyn Kohler (27925 Alvarez Drive) stated she bought her home over forty years ago for the beautiful views from the property. She felt the addition of the second story will significantly impair her ocean view. She noted that homes with ocean views receive Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2014 Page 4 Attachments 1-202 more money for their property, and therefore putting up the second story will devalue her house. She therefore opposed the proposed second story addition. Vincent Liu (6320 Villa Rosa Drive) stated he opposes the proposed two-story addition. He explained that the second story will completely block his northerly sky view. He did not think the height was compatible with most of the existing houses in the neighborhood. He was concerned with privacy issues to his property that will be caused by this proposed addition. He stated he would have no problem with a large, single story addition. Lastly, he was worried about competing for parking spaces on the street with such a large house across the street. William Sheh (6315 Villa Rosa Drive) stated that his main objection to the proposed project is the bulk and mass. He explained that if built as proposed, he will be staring at a large stucco wall looming over his property. He also felt the parking should be considered, as the street is a narrow cul-de-sac. David Hoenisch stated his mother is the owner of 6343 Rio Linda Drive, where he currently lives. He agreed with his neighbors on the neighborhood compatibility and parking issues. He explained that he has pictures taken from his property in 1964 where you can see from LAX to Point Conception. He noted that he currently can't even see Santa Monica or even the nearby coastline. He felt the applicant has a right to build a nice home, however the proposed home is not compatible with the neighborhood. Donald Brogdon (6328 Rio Linda Drive) stated he likes his neighborhood and his neighbors and explained what sold him on his current home is the backyard, noting he has no privacy issues with the neighbors because of the surrounding fence and they have views of open space. He explained that he and his neighbors live in homes that they worked hard to get and, while he understood that the applicant wanted to build his dream home, he noted that all of the neighbors currently live in homes they love. He stated he opposed the proposed two-story structure, as it will look directly down into his backyard, living room, bedroom, dining room, and bathroom. Ray Nuber (27919 Alvarez Drive) stated he bought his house both as a home as well as an investment, as its value is a significant portion of his retirement nest egg. He shared the various concerns of his neighbors in regards to the proposed addition. He did not think the applicant's request honors the City's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and Guidelines, as outlined in his submitted letter. He summarized that he was concerned about the bulk and mass, height, privacy issues, the incompatibility with the neighborhood, as well as not enhancing the street scape. In particular, he was concerned about the loss of his ocean views. He felt that allowing exceptions to the City's Guidelines, such as those proposed in this addition, would be setting a very bad precedent, and forever upsetting the well-designed balance to privacy and views in the City. He stated that the number of neighbors opposed to this proposed project far outnumber those who are in support of the project, indicating that the continued organized opposition will remain significant. He asked the City's leadership to respect Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2014 Page 5 Attachments 1-203 the City's Handbook and Guidelines, as these have served the City well. He felt that developers will continue to watch these proceedings with great financial interest, and how the City chooses to respond to this and similar requests for variances to the Code should be expected to signal just how rigorously the Commission will adjudicate future requests for variations, and therefore whether or not the City will encourage further attempts to push the limits and consume City resources for private benefits . He felt that allowing this addition will further open the opportunity to take away more of the light and air that makes RPV so desirable to live in. He asked the Commission deny this request, with prejudice. Julie Rice explained the various correspondence she has received from the Peachtree Family Trust who claim to be the applicants for this project. She questioned who the trust is, what commitment they have to the Villa Rosa neighborhood, and felt that Peachtree Family Trust appears to be a name used by those who wish to remain anonymous in their property dealings, and not a family trust at all. Mary Beth Corrado (6309 Villa Rosa Drive) stated she bought her home for the open, airy neighborhood and the small ocean view. She stated she and her husband spend quite a bit of time in their backyard enjoying the quiet and privacy. She felt the proposed size and style of the proposed addition is not compatible with the neighborhood. She noted the proposed 4,452 square foot house will be located on a 7,015 square foot lot, which is the smallest lot on the street. She stated that if the proposed addition is approved, she could no longer enjoy the privacy and solitude of her backyard, and the view of the open skyline, ocean, and sunsets will be gone forever. She was concerned about affects this house may have on future refinancing applications or attempts to sell the property. She asked the Planning Commission deny the addition as proposed. Kevin Hamilton (6309 Villa Rosa Drive) stated objections to the size of the proposed structure; the style of the structure, which he felt was not in character with the neighborhood; the invasion of neighbors' privacy from the proposed structure; the way the structure limits the openness in the neighborhood properties and streetscape; and the proposed addition promotes mansionization. He showed several photos and stated the neighborhood is dominated by single story ranch style homes, and the character of the neighborhood has been stable since 1989. He objected to the second story, as he felt it looks directly into his living room. He also noted the structure will take away all skyline view and any view of the ocean . Sam Hassan (in rebuttal) discussed 6320 Rio Linda Drive, noting that when he first met the neighbor his rear yard was in full shadow by the trees. He therefore cut his trees to help the neighbor. He noted that if he had not cut the trees the neighbors would not be able to complain about privacy issues or the height of the silhouette, as they would not have been able to see the silhouette. He felt the neighbor then cut his own trees to expose his house so the City could take pictures of the silhouette. He felt that his proposed addition is now much more exposed than it was before he and his neighbor cut the trees. Planning Commission Minutes May 27 , 2014 Page 6 Attachments 1-204 Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Hassan if he would be willing to remove the balconies from the rear of the second story. Mr. Hassan answered that he would have no issues with removing the rear balconies. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Hassan to clarify if he was the owner, and how Peachtree Family Trust was involved. Mr. Hassan answered that he was the owner of Peachtree Family Trust. Commissioner Tomblin noted that there are five bedrooms shown on the plans, and all have full walk in closets and four are almost full suites. In light of the bulk and mass issues, he asked Mr. Hassan if he is willing to reduce the size of those bedrooms. Mr. Hassan answered that he would be willing to reduce the size of the bedrooms . Chairman Leon closed the public hearing . Vice Chairman Nelson asked staff if 1,600 square foot homes are still being built in the City. Director Rojas answered that smaller homes are built on the east side of the City. Vice Chairman Nelson asked staff if when residents modifying these smaller homes do tend to add a second story, or do they tend to demolish and rebuild. Director Rojas answered that mostly residents add on to the same level, followed by second story additions, with a tear down and rebuild being the rarest. Vice Chairman Nelson asked staff to explain their position on neighborhood compatibility in regards to this proposed addition. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that there are very few two-story homes in the neighborhood and these are smaller lots. Therefore, when considering the compatibility of a second story staff hopes to see a design that minimizes any potential impact, such as bulk and mass. In these types of cases staff suggests reducing the height of the home and increase setback from the first floor on the second floor. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff, in terms of height, how much would the second story need to be lowered so that it's down to the horizon level as viewed from the street above. Associate Planner Mikhail felt that would be difficult to answer without a silhouette being constructed, however she pointed out that as currently designed the highest ridgeline is at the horizon line as seen from Alvarez Drive. Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2014 Page 7 Attachments 1-205 Commissioner James noted that several speakers stated that this is a very narrow street and that the applicant's lot is the smallest lot in the neighborhood. He asked staff to verify these statements. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that in terms of this being a narrow street, she did not feel there was anything out of the ordinary in terms of the width of the street, noting it is a cul-de-sac and therefore a rather short street. In terms of lot size, she referred to Table 2 in the staff report and noted that there are several lots of approximately the same size, however technically this is the smallest lot. Commissioner James asked if this is something staff takes into consideration when looking at bulk and mass issues. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that lot size is part of the analysis . Commissioner Gerstner asked staff, within the setbacks, the available buildable area on this lot if this were a single story structure. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that on this property there is a transition slope and the applicant is trying to expand the buildable area on the first floor, and in this case the applicant will gain approximately five feet of buildable area. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he had the opportunity to visit the three neighboring properties and had the opportunity to not only view the proposed addition from these properties but also talk to the residents. He stated that what he heard over and over was the concern over the loss of privacy and the feeling of the bulk and mass being too close to their property. He felt that having the second story addition extend beyond the current footprint seems to be problematic for the neighbors. He felt that eliminating the balcony will alleviate a big privacy issue for the neighbors. He did not think that the discussion on parking and traffic is an issue the Planning Commission should be considering when discussing this proposed addition, as any number of people can potentially live in any size home. He felt that the backyards in this neighborhood are very small and encroaching further in and being able to peer into someone's property in the back seems to be a problem, regardless if the trees are there or not. He felt if the house could be brought back more in line to its current footprint would be helpful. Commissioner Emenhiser felt the proposed addition was too tall and had too much bulk and mass, and would be a very large house on a small lot. He noted that there are other two-story homes in the neighborhood, and he felt a balance could be reached on the size of the home and the rights of the owner to develop his property. 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 Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2014 Page 8 Attachments 1-206 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. Vice Chairman Nelson stated he was in favor of a two-story home since the applicant has five children. He did not think the number of potential or future cars should play any part in this decision. In terms of neighborhood compatibility , he urged the applicant to look at the facades of the other homes in the neighborhood and to try to make his fa9ade as compatible as he could with the neighbors. He stated he has no problem with neighborhood compatibility as long as the applicant looks at the other facades in the neighborhood, he felt he roof could be lowered a bit, he felt he chimney could be modified to not be so large, and he felt the balconies in the rear could be removed. Other than that, he felt the design was a good one. Commissioner James also 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 . Commissioner Tomblin agreed that this is a very large house on a very small lot. He stated he was not saying no to a second story, however he felt there were a lot of things that could be done rather than this proposed design. He liked the idea of a split-level home with a bit of excavation. He was also concerned in that he had never seen a five bedroom home with just a two-car garage. He stated that he could not support the home as currently designed, and would have to see some major revisions and creativity before he could support the project. Chairman Leon asked the Commissioners if they were in favor or against any type of second story home on this lot, as this would help give the applicant some direction in their redesign. Commissioner Cruikshank stated the idea of a split-level home was an interesting and appealing idea. He was concerned about the bulk and mass 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. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he could support a two-story home given there are other two-story homes in the immediate neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2014 Page 9 Attachments 1-207 Commissioner James stated he would have to see a design before making a decision, but felt it would be preferable not to have a second story. However, he would not go so far as to say he would absolutely not approve a second story addition. Commissioner Tomblin also stated he would not say no to a second story, however it would have to be designed with a lot of thought and creativity. Commissioner Gerstner clarified that it has been his experience in doing this type of work that leads him to believe that a second story solution on this property that meets what he believes to be the appropriate bulk and mass characteristics was going to be very difficult and highly unlikely. He did not think the Commissioners were commenting that a second story was or was not acceptable in this neighborhood. The Commissioners were commenting on bulk and mass and compatibility with the neighborhood. He stated that a second story is a characteristic that leads to bulk and mass. Chairman Leon agreed that it will be very difficult for a second story to have the kind of design and bulk and mass such that it will be compatible with the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Nelson moved staff recommendation to continue the public hearing to July 8, 2014 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to address project impacts related to privacy, neighborhood compatibility, and view impairment as identified by the staff and the surrounding residents, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Mikhail noted that the applicant will need to agree to a 90 day extension to the Permit Streamling Act so that the Planning Commission can continue the project beyond the deadline in order to redesign the project. Mr. Hassan agreed to a 90 day extension. S TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Director Rojas noted there 1 one item on this agenda and the Commission may wish to cancel this meeting and m et e one item to the July meeting . The Commission unanimously agreed to cancel meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p .m . ne 101h Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2014 Page 10 Attachments 1-208 P.C. Staff Report (May 27, 2014 P.C. Meeting) • Late Correspondence from May 27, 2014 P.C. Mtg. Attachments 1-209 CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS, COM ~ DEVELOPMENT DIRE MAY 27, 2014 CASE NO. ZON2014-00064 {HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW) 6321 VILLA ROSA DR. SAM HASSAN THOMAS GUIDE MAP COORDINATES: 792-H6 STAFF COORDINATOR: PEACHTREE FAMILY TRUST LEZA MIKHAIL ~ ASSOCIATE PLAN t_r:.;tJJ REQUESTED ACTION: RECOMMENDATION: REFERENCES: ZONING: LAND USE: A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE, WITH TWO BALCONIES AT THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AND TWO BALCONIES AT THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3'-10" TALL RETAINING WALL AND 52.97 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW ADDITIONS. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, RECEIVE TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC AND APPLICANT, AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 8, 2014 TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT TO ADDRESS PROJECT IMPACTS RELATED TO PRIVACY, NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY AND VIEW IMPAIRMENT IDENTIFIED BY STAFF AND SURROUNDING RESIDENTS. RS-5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE y Attachments 1-210 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No . ZON2014-00064 Page 2 CODE SECTIONS: 17.02, 17.48 AND 17.76.040 GENERAL PLAN: TRAILS PLAN: SPECIFIC PLAN: CEQA STATUS: ACTION DEADLINE: RESIDENTIAL, 2-4 DU/ACRE NONE NONE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15301) JUNE 20, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WITHIN 500-FOOT NOTIFICATION RADIUS : NONE BACKGROUND On February 10, 2014, the applicant submitted a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application to the Community Development Department for review and processing. The applicant is requestind approval to construct a first and second story addition, four balconies and a 3'-1 O" tall retaining wall. On February 27, 2014, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans. The applicant submitted revisions on March 14, March 20, March 25, and April 17, 2014. Subsequently, Staff deemed the application complete on April 21, 2014. On April 21, 2014, Staff mailed notices to 206 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, providing a 30-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on April 24, 2014. Staff received forty-five (45) comment letters, and a petition in opposition of the project, as a result of the public notice. Staff has addressed these comment letters in the "Additional Information" section of this report. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is a 7,015 square foot lot located on the north side of Villa Rosa Dr., north of Hawthorne Blvd. and east of Granvia Altimira , within the RS-5 zoning district (single- family residential). The subject lot is considered a pad lot (less than 5% slope) with a 5-foot transitional slope along the east side of the property. The subject property is currently improved with a 1,434 square foot single-story residence with a 404 square foot indirect access garage. The existing residence has a legal, non- conforming 14'-7" front yard setback (20'-0" required). The Development Code specifies lot coverage to include any building or structure, decks over 30 inches in height and parking areas or driveways, courtyards and impervious surfaces. The maximum allowable lot coverage in the RS-5 zoning district is 52% of the total lot area. The existing lot coverage encompasses 1,838 square feet dedicated toward the building footprint and 772.5 square feet dedicated toward the driveway. Combined, the total existing lot coverage is 2,610.5 square feet, or 37.2% of the 7,015 square foot lot. Attachments 1-211 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes a request to construct a new 516 square foot first floor addition and a 2,098 square foot second floor addition to the existing 1,838 square foot residence (garage included). The project includes two second floor balconies at the front of the residence, and two second floor balconies at the rear of the residence. The proposed additions to the main residence would result in a structure that reaches a maximum height of 25'-5" as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 106.02') to the top of the highest ridgeline (elev. 131.44'). The applicant is also proposing a new 3'-10" tall retaining wall along the east side yard with a total of 52.97 cubic yards of excavation to accommodate the new retaining wall and additions. The new lot coverage will increase as a result of the project. The new lot coverage will include the new building footprint (2,354 square feet), covered porches (47 square feet), balconies (234.4 square feet) and driveway (772.5 square feet), with a total lot coverage of 3,407.9 square feet, or 48.5% of the existing 7,015 square foot lot. As noted earlier, the existing residence has a legal, non-conforming 14'-7" front yard setback (20'-0" required). Pursuant to the Development Code, due to the fact that the applicant is not proposing to demolish more than 50% of the existing interior and exterior walls, this non-conforming setback may be maintained. Table 1: Project Statistics: CODE EXISTING CRITERIA REQUIREMENT RESIDENCE NEW RESIDENCE Lot Size 8 ,000 s.f. 7,015 s.f. No change Structure Size N/A 1,838 s.f. 4,452 s.f. Setbacks Front: 20'-0" 14'-7" No change Side (east) 5'-0" 7'-6" No change Side (west) 5'-0" 11'-8" 5'-0" Rear 15'-0" 33'-8" 19'-3" Lot Coverage (%) 52% 37.2% 48.5% Enclosed Parking 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces Structure Height -Pad Lot Highest elevation of 16' Approx. 14' -0" 25'-2" existing building pad covered by structure to highest ridge of building. Attachments 1-212 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 4 CODE CRITERIA REQUIREMENT Lowest grade adjacent 20' to the building foundation/slab. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXISTING RESIDENCE NEW RESIDENCE Approx. 14' -0" 25'-5" Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section 15301 (e)(1 )(additions) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the project includes the construction of a 516 square foot first floor addition and 2,050 square foot second floor addition to the existing single-family residence. As such, this project has been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment. CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS Height Variation Since the proposed two-story structure exceeds 16'-0" from the highest grade elevation, a Height Variation is required for this request. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(1 )(a), the Community Development Director is required to refer the application to the Planning Commission for consideration whenever a portion of the structure over 16'-0" in height may impair a view from another property, such as the proposed project. Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(C)(1 )(e) sets forth the findings required in order for the Planning Commission to approve a Height Variation. A discussion of these findings (in bold type) follows: 1. The applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process established by the city. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code requires the applicant to take all necessary steps to consult with the property owners within 500 feet of the project site. The City has established the following guidelines to conform with this requirement, "[applicant must obtain] the signatures of at least 60% of the landowners within 500 feet; or 70% of the landowners within 100 feet and 25% of the total number of landowners within 500 feet (including those within 100 feet) is obtained." With exception to the project site, there are 14 properties within 100 feet and 206 parcels within 500 feet of the site. The applicant obtained 5 signatures from properties within 100 feet (35%) and 9 signatures from properties within 500 feet (4%). After multiple attempts to obtain the required signatures and conducting an open house on April 12, 2014, the applicant requested permission from the Community Development Director to proceed with a different alternative in order to meet this requirement. The City's Height Variation Guidelines state that, after attempting to obtain signatures via Attachments 1-213 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Pages door-to-door contact and holding an open house, a property owner may send a copy of the proposed plans, via certified mail, to the property owners within a 500 foot radius. On April 17, 2014, the property owners sent a copy of the plans, via certified mail, to the property owners within the 500 foot radius who did not previously sign the "acknowledgement of early neighbor consultation" form. As such, this finding can be adopted. 2. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as city-designated viewing areas. The Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, adopted June 26, 1975, identifies viewing points (turnouts along vehicular corridors for the purposes of viewing) and viewing sites (public site areas, which due to their physical locations on the Peninsula, provide a significant viewing vantage) within the City. Due to the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structure does not impair a view from a public viewing area or viewing site, as defined by the General Plan. As such, the proposed structure will not impair a view, which has been defined in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan. Therefore, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. 3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. A ridge is defined as, "an elongated crest or a linear series of crests of hills, bluffs, or highlands"(Section 17.96.1610 of the Municipal Code). A promontory is defined as, "a prominent mass of land, large enough to support development, which overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides" (Section 17.96.1480 of the Municipal Code). The proposed residence would be located on an existing building pad, similar to other lots within the developed area, and is not located on a prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on two sides. As such, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. 4. The area of a proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or an addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height, as defined in Section 17.02.040(8) of the Development Code, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. Protected views that are available to some of the homes in the surrounding neighborhood are "far views" of the Pacific Ocean and Santa Monica mountains above Malibu. "Near views," which are defined as "a scene located on the peninsula including, but not limited to, a valley, ravine, equestrian trail, pastoral environment or any natural setting," are not found within this particular neighborhood. Staff believes that the portions of the proposed project that are above 16'-0" in height, will not significantly impair protected views from a majority of the homes within the immediate Attachments 1-214 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 6 neighborhood. This is largely due to the location of the proposed residence, the orientation of neighboring homes and topography of the neighborhood. Staff was, however, concerned with potential view impacts to three properties located along Alvarez Dr. Additionally, Staff received comment letters from other neighbor's in the neighborhood who were concerned with view impairment impacts. Staff has provided a view analysis of each home observed below. View Analysis from 6309 Villa Rosa After the construction of the required silhouette, Staff received a phone call and comment letter(s) (attached) from the property owner of 6309 Villa Rosa who noted view impairment concerns, along with other concerns related to neighborhood compatibility. During a site visit, Staff determined the primary viewing area to be the dining room, which is located in the northwest corner of the residence. Due to the orientation of 6309 Villa Rosa, there is a small view of the Pacific Ocean as seen across the rear yards of properties to the west, including the subject property (6321 Villa Rosa) through the dining room window. As seen from this viewing area, the proposed project will block a view of the Pacific Ocean, however the ocean view will be obstructed by the portions of the project that are under the "by-right" 16'-0" height limitation permitted on single-family residential lots. The portions of the proposed project that are above 16' -0" are above the horizon line as seen from the viewing area of 6309 Villa Rosa. As such, the portions of the proposed structure that are above 16'- 0" will not significantly impair the view from this property. View Analysis from 6302 Villa Rosa Staff received a phone call and email from the property owner of 6302 Villa Rosa noting concerns with neighborhood compatibility and view impairment as seen from their property. After conducting a site visit, Staff determined the primary viewing area of 6302 Villa Rosa to be their kitchen, which is located just east of the front door. From this vantage point, the property owner has views of the Pacific Ocean in a westerly direction. Staff could not ascertain whether the property owner has views of the Santa Monica mountains. While Staff agrees that the proposed project does impair views of the Pacific Ocean as seen from the kitchen window, similar to the property located at 6309 Villa Rosa, the ocean view will be obstructed by the portions of the project that are under the "by-right" 16'-0" height limitation permitted on single-family residential lots. This height limitation is depicted by the blue markers located on the silhouette frame of the proposed project. Also similar to the property located at 6309 Villa Rosa, the portions of the proposed project that are above 16' -0" are above the horizon line as seen from the primary viewing area. As such, there is no significant view impairment to this property. View Analysis from 6329 Ridgepath Staff received a comment letter from the property owner of 6329 Ridgepath. This property is located within a planned development east of the subject property and Hawthorne Blvd. This planned development is comprised of a number of attached Attachments 1-215 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 7 townhomes. Some of these townhomes back up against Hawthorne Blvd., where they enjoy views of the Pacific Ocean and coastline from the master bedrooms of their second floor, facing a westerly direction. Views of the Pacific Ocean and coastline are not observed from lower level living rooms due to a thick layer of existing foliage in common space of the development, along Hawthorne Blvd. Given that the only views are from areas of the townhomes that exceed 16'-0", there is no significant view impairment to this property. View Analysis from 27919 , 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr . Staff coordinated a site visit to 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez with Mrs. Kohler, the property owner of 27925 Alvarez Dr, to conduct a view analysis from these three properties. These properties are located east of the subject property, approximately 15- 20 feet higher in elevation. Due to the topography in the immediate neighborhood and the existing development of a majority of single-story homes at lower elevations, these properties have westerly views of the Pacific Ocean and Malibu above the rooftops of the homes along Villa Rosa and Rio Linda. Staff determined the primary viewing areas of these three properties to be the living rooms along the rear fac;ade of the existing structures, which look at the east side elevation of the subject project. Staff determined that the proposed project, above 16 feet in height, would create a significant view impairment of the Pacific Ocean, irrespective of existing foliage, as seen from 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. Specifically, portions of the proposed project above 16 feet in height, as seen from these two properties, would be located in the middle of the view frame and would obstruct a significant amount of the ocean view. While Staff also found that the proposed project above 16 feet in height would impair views of the ocean from the viewing area of 27919 Alvarez Dr., the view impairment was not considered to be significant when considering the entire view of the ocean and Malibu as seen from the viewing area of this property. More specifically, unlike 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr., views of the proposed project from 27919 were to the far left of the entire view frame and did not block a significant amount of the entire ocean view. Views of the Santa Monica mountains above Malibu remained unobstructed by the project from all three properties. Therefore, based on the current design of the project and the significant impairment of Pacific Ocean views as seen from 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr., Staff is not able to make this finding. 5. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is determined not to be significant, as described in Finding No. 4, the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view. As noted in Finding No. 4 above, the property at 27919 Alvarez is the only neighboring property determined by Staff to have view impacts caused by portions of the proposed Attachments 1-216 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page8 project above 16 feet, but not to a significant level. The project has been designed to reach a height of 25' -5" with a second story fa9ade that spans almost the entire length of the first floor. Staff is of the opinion that the project could be significantly reduced in height and scale to minimize impairment of views as seen from 27919 Alvarez. As such, as currently designed, Staff cannot make this finding. 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. According to the City's Height Variation Guidelines, to make this assessment, Staff must evaluate the impacts of a similar project as the proposed project on 3 or 4 parcels "adjacent" to the subject property. The four properties that are "adjacent" to the applicant are: 6315 Villa Rosa, 6309 Villa Rosa, 6303 Villa Rosa and 6329 Rio Linda. After considering similar additions on the properties listed above that are adjacent to the subject project, it appears that potential similar additions on the four properties would encroach into the narrow band of the Pacific Ocean view as seen from the viewing areas of 27919, 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Dr. More importantly, a potential addition at 6320 Rio Linda would be located near the center of the view frame of these three properties, and would create a cumulative view impairment impact by eliminating a significant amount of the existing view of the Pacific Ocean from these properties. As such, Staff is not able to make this finding. 7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements. As noted in the Site Description and Project Description portion of this report, the existing residence has a legal, non-conforming front yard setback (14'-7"). Due to the fact that the applicant is not proposing to demolish more than 50% of the existing interior and exterior walls, the existing legal, non-conforming setback is permitted to be maintained. All other Development Code standards with regard to setbacks, lot coverage and parking (also see project statistics above) are met. The lot coverage includes the residence footprint (2,354 square feet), balconies and covered patios (281.4 square feet) and driveway (772.5 square feet). This would yield a total of 3,407.9 square feet, or 48.5% of the 7 ,015 square foot lot, which meets the 52% lot coverage limit in the RS- 5 zoning district. As such, this finding can be made. Attachments 1-217 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page9 8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040.A.6. of the Municipal Code, "Neighborhood Character" is defined to consider the existing physical characteristics of an area. The factors to be analyzed per the code language are boldface, and Staff's analysis is in normal type. (1) Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures. Compatibility with neighborhood character is based on a comparison to the other structures in the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised of the twenty (20) closest properties. The table below illustrates the 20 properties and structures that comprise the immediate neighborhood and serve as the basis for neighborhood compatibility. The homes analyzed, along with the lot size, structure size, and number of stories, are listed below in the Neighborhood Compatibility Table. Table 2: Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis IF·~··~·,~;.;.: '-~¥.~-:~~':::·~-:."~ ' . '<"'.o.~ --~·' -- -:1 ~ I I I ' • -• .. -• • • I~"-'--~;··}~·-.~~~,·:-~ _ 1 ~1 iJ..t -:-.-I _;, -· _.;-·1 I :: ·-• ~ ~-!-!: • =-:..%---=---:;-' -• --~ ~ ~ --~· 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 2,052 1 6314 Villa Rosa 9,421 2,331 2 6320 Villa Rosa 9,093 1,942 1 6326 Villa Rosa 10,959 1,942 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 ,326 1 6343 Villa Rosa 7,721 4,612 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 7,367 2,193 1 6337 Rio Linda 7,379 2,193 1 6409 Rio Linda 7,369 2,326 1 Average 8,724 2,421 n/a 6321 Villa Rosa 7,015 1,838 1 4,452 2 Attachments 1-218 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 10 As noted in the table above, the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a majority of one-story homes with a few two-story homes found along Villa Rosa. The homes range in size from 1,942 square feet to 4,612 square feet. The average home size for all of the 20 closest homes is 2,421 square feet. Although the proposed residence will not exceed the largest home in neighborhood ( 4,612 square feet), the proposed residence will result in a structure that is the second largest home in the immediate neighborhood. The next largest home in the neighborhood is 3,391 square feet, with the average home size being 2,421 square feet. Staff is of the opinion that while, in some cases, a home that is within the range of structure sizes may be found compatible, Staff has found that bulk and mass issues described on the following page result in a project that may need to be redesigned to be closer to the structures sizes found in the immediate neighborhood. Staff also conducted an aerial survey to review the lot coverage of the proposed project compared to the immediate neighborhood. A majority of the lots in the immediate neighborhood appear to have a similar lot coverage as the proposed project. Furthermore, the properties within the immediate neighborhood are located within the RS-5 zoning district, which allows a maximum lot coverage of 52%. The subject property will result in a 48.5% lot coverage, which is below the maximum allowable lot coverage in the RS-5 zone. (2) Architectural styles, including fa~ade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials. The surrounding neighborhood is comprised of a majority of one-story homes and a few two-story homes, all with varying architectural styles and fa<;ade treatments along the exterior walls. The materials found within the immediate neighborhood range from stucco finishes and wood siding to brick or stone facades. The applicant is proposing a two-story residence with stucco finished walls and a stone veneer. The materials proposed will be compatible within the immediate neighborhood. The applicant has provided some articulation and multiple roof lines to the front, sides and rear facades of the residence to reduce the apparent bulk and mass of the proposed structure. Additionally, the applicant has provided a hipped roof and a 4'-4" second story setback along the east side of the residence which provides some design relieve to the new second story addition. While Staff is of the opinion that the proposed design offers some design features that provide relief of bulk and mass, Staff is concerned that the second story fa<;ade, as seen from the street, and neighboring properties creates bulk and mass issues. Staff is of the opinion that additional second story setbacks are necessary to reduce bulk and mass impacts from the sides and rear of the property. Furthermore, the proposed balconies at the rear of the residence increase the bulk and mass impacts as seen from the adjacent neighboring properties to the east, west and north. Attachments 1-219 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 11 In addition to the bulk and mass issues relayed above, Staff is also concerned that the proposed project will create bulk and mass impacts to the properties located at 6309 Villa Rosa and 6320 Rio Linda. Specifically, when viewing the silhouette from the dining room of the neighbor's property at 6309 Villa Rosa and the rear yard of 6320 Rio Linda, the rear portion of the proposed project will create bulk and mass impacts. Staff is of the opinion that bulk and mass can be reduced by significantly increasing the second story setback from the rear the residence and significantly reducing or eliminating the large second story balconies at the rear of the property. Staff is of the opinion that further articulation and setbacks to the second floor footprint and the elimination or significant reduction in the second story balconies would potentially minimize the apparent bulk and mass of the proposed structure as seen from the street and neighboring properties at 6309 Villa Rosa and 6320 Rio Linda. As such, as currently designed, Staff believes that this portion of the Height Variation finding No.8 cannot be made. (3) Front, side, and rear yard setbacks According to the Development Code, structures shall maintain the following minimum setbacks: 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setback, and 15-foot rear yard setback. The legal, non-conforming front yard setback is permitted to remain as noted in the Site Description section of this report. As also stated above, the first floor additions of the project will meet all the minimum side and rear yard setback requirements for the lot which are consistent with the other setbacks found throughout the immediate neighborhood. However, as noted in Finding No. (8)(2) above, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed second story creates bulk and mass issues as seen from the street and neighboring properties, and is not compatible with the neighborhood. Based on the analysis above, it is Staff's oprn1on that the proposed "scale, architectural s'tyle and materials, and front, side, and rear yard setbacks" are not consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood as the proposed second story, as currently designed, creates bulk and mass issues as seen from the street and neighboring properties. As such, Staff feels that this finding cannot be adopted. 9. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. The Municipal Code defines privacy as, "reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation." The Height Variation Guidelines state, "Given the variety and number of options which are available to preserve indoor privacy, greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor privacy than to protecting indoor privacy. "The applicant has designed the home so that the second story side facades have clerestory windows, thereby eliminating any potential privacy impacts from the side facades. Further, due to Attachments 1-220 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 12 the orientation of the adjacent properties to the east and west (6315 and 6329 Villa Rosa), coupled with existing foliage and on-site development, Staff does not believe that the proposed additions will create a significant privacy impact to these two properties. After conducting a site visit to the property located at 6328 Rio Linda, Staff determined that the proposed project would not create significant privacy impacts to this property. This is due to the fact that the current property owner of 6328 Rio Linda has a large amount of tall, mature landscaping that surrounds their rear yard. This existing landscaping provides a thick screen of the proposed silhouette, thereby protecting the property owner from potential privacy impacts. However, Staff believes that views from the proposed second story rear windows and rear balconies into the northerly neighbor's property, located at 6320 Rio Linda, will result in significant privacy impacts. After a site visit, Staff observed the significant privacy impacts into the rear yard and sun room of 6320 Rio Linda that would result from the rear windows and balconies of the proposed project. Much of this impact is due to the fact that the depth of these two lots and the proposed rear yard setback to the second floor would not offer adequate distance to reduce or minimize the privacy impact to a less than significant level. Although Staff has concerns with privacy impacts between these two properties (proposed project and 6320 Rio Linda), Staff is of the opinion that there may be design options that would mitigate the impact to a less than significant level, including additional second story setbacks, fixed/translucent windows, and the elimination of the rear yard balconies. However, as currently designed, Staff is not able to support this finding. Grading Permit In order to approve the Grading Permit, the Planning Commission must determine that the request meets all nine criteria as set forth in Municipal Code Section No. 17. 76.040. These criteria are listed below in bold type, with staff's analysis following. 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17 .96 of the Municipal Code. 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8), is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from pre-construction (existing grade). 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. 4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography. Attachments 1-221 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 13 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Chapter 17.02. 6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillsides areas. 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements, which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. 8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. 9. Grading conforms to the standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill, and height of retaining walls. In order to accommodate a portion of the 516 square foot first floor addition, the applicant is proposing to excavate 52.97 cubic yards of dirt along the east side of the property and constructing a retaining wall that will reach a maximum height of 3'-1 O." The proposed grading and retaining wall would increase buildable area of the property by eliminating the transitional slope along the east side property line with the proposed retaining wall. Municipal Code Section No. 17.96.2210 defines the permitted primary use to be the most important purpose for which a particular zoning district was established. The subject property is located in the RS-5 zone, whereby the permitted primary use accommodates single-family residential dwellings and other ancillary uses such as grading and retaining walls. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed grading (52.97 cubic yards of excavation) and retaining wall do not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The property was previously graded to accommodate a new single-family residence, similar to other homes in the immediate neighborhood. The proposed grading and retaining wall would allow the applicant to expand the first floor area of the existing residence. Furthermore, the new retaining wall will be facing the interior of the subject lot and will not visible from neighboring properties. It is important to note that the applicant is aware that the portion of the retaining wall within the 20-foot front yard setback cannot exceed a maximum height of 42", including any guardrail requirements imposed by the City's Building and Safety Division. Due to the fact that the neighboring property has an existing 5'-0" tall fence, a guardrail is not currently required. However, if the existing fence were removed, a guardrail would be required. The applicant is aware that a condition of approval reflecting this requirement would be imposed, if the project were approved. With regard to the natural landscape criteria above, based on the City's NCCP vegetation maps, there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the subject property, which is a developed lot in a single-family residential neighborhood. As such, the proposed project would not result in excessive or unnecessary removal of sensitive vegetation. Attachments 1-222 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 14 Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% shall be allowed on recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975, such as the subject property. However the applicant is not grading on a slope that exceeds a 35% gradient. Therefore, this criterion has been met. Finished slope contours The Municipal Code limits the contours of finished slopes to no greater than 35%. The applicant is not proposing any new contours or finished slope. As such, this grading criterion does not apply. Excavation or Fill on a Slope exceeding 50% Gradient The code states that no fill or cut shall be permitted on a slope exceeding 50% gradient, unless the grading is on a 67% slope or greater. As noted above, the grading is not proposed on a slope that is greater than 35%. Therefore, this grading criterion has been met. Depth of Cut or Fill Except for the excavation of a basement or cellar, a fill or cut shall not exceed a depth of five feet at any point except where the director or the planning commission determines that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary. The proposed grading will not exceed a depth of 5'-0". As such this grading criterion has been met. Height of retaining walls On lots sloping with the street, such as the subject property, the Development Code allows one (1) retaining wall not to exceed three and one-half on each side of the lot. The proposed retaining wall will slightly exceed this requirement by 4 inches, at a height of 3'-1 O". As such, this grading criterion cannot be met. As noted above, the applicant is proposing a retaining wall that will exceed the grading criterion for retaining walls located in the side yard of lots that slope with the street. However, the Planning Commission is allowed to approve a Grading Permit that does not conform to these standards, provided that the following four findings can be adopted: a) The first eight criterion in subsection (E)(1) through (E)(B) have been met. As noted in the discussion above, Staff's opinion is that all eight criteria are being met; therefore, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. Attachments 1-223 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 15 b) The second finding is that the request is consistent with the purpose of Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040. Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040 states, "the purpose of the chapter is to provide reasonable development of land, ensure the maximum preservation of the scenic character of the area, ensure that the development of properties occurs in a manner harmonious to adjoining properties, and that the project complies with the goals and polices of the General Plan." By allowing the deviations in the grading standards, the applicant is able to provide an upslope retaining wall along the east side yard property line, similar to other retaining walls found on lots that slope with the street. Although a majority of the retaining wall would not be visible from other properties, if approved, Staff would add a condition of approval requiring the applicant to plant and maintain small shrubs in front of the retaining wall at the front of the residence to adequately screen the visibility of the front portion of the retaining wall as seen from the street. In addition, allowing deviations in the grading standard allows the applicant to expand their first floor addition and provides access along the side of the residence, from the front of the property to the rear of the property. Further, the scenic character of the neighborhood would not be altered, as the new retaining wall, as conditioned, would not be easily seen from the public right-of-way or neighboring properties. As such, Staff believes this finding can be adopted. c) The third finding is that approval of the grading permit will not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. The surrounding neighborhood is inundated with hillside properties that grade to utilize retaining walls that support transitional slopes between properties and are typical of tract developments. The subject property is a pad lot with a transitional slope between the subject property and the neighboring property to the east. As retaining walls are typically found throughout the neighborhood, and the proposed retaining wall that slightly deviates from the grading criterion will support the construction of the one-story additions to the existing residence, Staff feels this finding can be adopted. d) The final finding is that departures from the standards will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property. The City's geotechnical consultant will be required to approve a soil engineering report for the grading and retaining wall. Furthermore, the City, prior to issuance of building permits, requires that the structure and all retaining walls be engineered to meet the requirements of the building code. These aforementioned requirements are placed on all structures, regardless of the deviations in the grading standards. Further, deviation from the standard would allow the property owner the ability to stabilize the property surrounding the new residence by supporting the existing transitional slope along the east side property line. As such, deviating from the standards does not alter the City's review of the structural aspect of the structure Attachments 1-224 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 16 and the retaining wall. With these provisions, the proposed deviation will not cause a detrimental impact to public safety and/or other properties in the vicinity of the project. As such, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. e) Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. If the Planning Commission approved the proposed project and deviation from the grading standards, Staff would send a copy of the Notice of Decision and associated Resolution to the following property owners: 1) 6315 Villa Rosa, 2) 6329 Villa Rosa, and 3) 6320 Rio Linda. Ultimately, all four findings can be made and the proposed grading application, which is in excess of that normally permissible under subsection (E)(9) of Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040, can be approved. Site Plan Review As the applicant is proposing to construct additions outside of the second floor footprint, a Site Plan Review application is required. The proposed first floor additions meet the required setbacks, building heights and lot coverage for the RS-5 zoning district. As the proposed first floor additions meet the development code standards, the Site Plan Review permit (first floor addition) can be supported and approved. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Foliage Analysis As the additions would create more than 120 square feet of viewing or gathering area, a foliage analysis was triggered. As a result of a site visit, Staff determined that the subject property does not have any existing foliage that significantly impairs views from the viewing area of another parcel. Public Notice As a result of the public notice, Staff received forty-five (45) comment letters (attached) from the public, including multiple comment letters from the same property owners, and two petition letters. More specifically, the comment letters include a petition with five (5) interested parties in support of the project, a petition with forty-seven (47) interested parties in opposition of the proposed project, two (2) comment letters in support of the project and forty-one ( 41) comment letters in opposition of the porject. The main concerns raised in the comment letters had to do with a lack of compatibility of the second story in terms of bulk and mass, and privacy impacts. Additionally, concerns related to view impairment were relayed from some properties located east of the subject property. As noted throughout the body of this report, it is Staff's opinion that the project, as currently Attachments 1-225 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 17 designed, creates bulk and mass impacts as seen from the street and the adjacent neighboring properties. Additionally, Staff noted bulk and mass impacts as seen from the dining room of 6309 Villa Rosa. Specifically, Staff noted concerns with the second story footprint and the need for additional setbacks to the second floor, and the elimination or significant reduction in the second story balconies at the rear of the property to reduce privacy impacts to 6320 Rio Linda. Lastly, Staff relayed view impact concerns as seen from the properties located 27925 and 27931 Alvarez Drive. As noted throughout the body of the Height Variation findings, as currently designed, Staff is not able to support the proposed project. Staff has relayed these concerns to the property owner, however the property owner wishes to obtain feedback from the Planning Commission before considering any further design modifications. Permit Streamlining Act The deadline for the Permit Streamlining Act expires on June 20, 2014. If the Planning Commission agrees to continue the project to July 8, 2014, as recommended by Staff, the Planning Commission will need to request an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act from the applicant for a maximum of ninety (90) days. This would create a new Permit Streamlining Act deadline of September 18, 2014. If the applicant does not agree to the extension, then Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the item to the June 10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting where Staff will provide a Draft Resolution denying, without prejudice, the request. CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, Staff concludes that the required findings for Grading Permit and Site Plan Review can be made, but the findings for the Height Variation cannot be made. While Staff is able to support the request for the one-story addition, grading and retaining wall, Staff has concluded that the proposed project, as currently designed, is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, creates privacy impacts to 6320 and 6328 Rio Linda, and creates significant view impairment impacts as seen from 27931and27925 Alvarez. After discussing these issues with the property owner, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the merits of the application, hear the public testimony, provide the applicant with direction and continue the project to July 8, 2014 to allow the applicant time to consider modifications to the project. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to act on: 1. Approve the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00064), as submitted, and direct Staff to return to the next Planning Commission meeting with the appropriate resolution. Attachments 1-226 Height Variation & Site Plan Review Planning Case No. ZON2014-00064 Page 18 2. Deny, with prejudice, the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00065), and direct Staff to return to the next Planning Commission meeting with the appropriate resolution. 3. Deny, without prejudice, the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00065), and direct Staff to return to the next Planning Commission meeting with the appropriate resolution. Attachments: Public Correspondence Project plans Attachments 1-227 P.C. Late Correspondence (from May 27, 2014 P.C. Meeting) Attachments 1-228 Leza Mikhail ;from: ent: To: Subject: Leza, Paul & Suzie <paul.suzie@yahoo.com> Monday, May 26, 2014 2:03 PM Leza Mikhail; sh2800@hotmail.com 6321 villa rosa drive I wanted to update you on my ongoing conversation with Sam Hassan. He and I met today to talk about my concerns about his proposed remodel. He listened and understands my concerns that his proposed home was too high and would partially block the ocean view from my home at 6302 villa rosa drive. We discussed some compromises which I believe address my concern . Sam seems like he is genuinely trying to do the right thing with his communications with the neighbors, and I applaud him for that. I also strongly support Investing in our neighborhood as it desperately needs it. I hope the hearing goes well tomorrow and that we are able to find a good compromise. Thank you, Paul and Suzanne Cyril Sent from my iPad Attachments 1-229 Leza Mikhail From: int: To: Subject: Leza Mikhail Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:13 PM Leza Mikhail FW: villa Rossa DR please Leza foreword this email to the planning commotion From: Sayed Hassan Imailto :sh2800@hotmait.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:03 PM To: Leza Mikhail Subject: Re: villa Rossa DR please Leza foreword this email to the planning commotion Dear planning commission I have purchased my house in January 2014 at that time I have a big landscaping around my house especially in my back yard up to 30 feet long. Please see the attach Thank Sam hassan Thank you very much Attachments 1-230 ~ ECS Ho111e ln!!iJJections . . Propcr~y I nSJlcction .Report ~ -.. -~ - 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verde, CA 90275 Inspection prepared for: Sam Ha Date of Inspection: 11/26/2013 Time: 1 :OOPM Age of Home: 1962 Size: 1,434 Sqft Weather: Sunny Inspector: Anthony Schlessinger Inspector: Luis Marroquin, Certification#12083107 4413 Riverside Drive Suite H, Chino, CA 9171 O Phone: 866-611-7644 Email: Ecshomeinspections@hotmail.com Www .Ecshomeinspection.com -. lllJ#E /fVgp£eTllJ!VS ·opyright 2007 ECS Home Services all right reserved Attachments 1-231 Attachments 1-232 / .. -:---~v .. -" ~ :."'~ ·~. ..'+·. ·-· -......i.. Attachments 1-233 ... ~!.} ~.' ..... •· ... ,. '·•'t .. • ' ·.·r._. \ .\ .1,. \ -:···:· . / Attachments 1-234 ~--- ~Iii Attachments 1-235 Attachments 1-236 L. Attachments 1-237 Attachments 1-238 r AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 22725 Old Canel Road, Yorba Linda, CA 92887 " (714) 685-3900 8 (7141) 685-3909 www.emgt.com TITLE: SCALE: N.T.S AERIAL MAP 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE RANCHp PALOS VERDES, CA I DATE: I FILE NO.: FEB 2014 ns:os;.t1.?wn 1 PLATE 2 Attachments 1-239 . . .. . ~ . , ...... .. , I :.. .... ~:·-~ '.' !· I t.. ·: •• . ·-l • ;~":." ·~ . ,, ···).r.""':-1 , ' · .. · ... ... . , ' ... '! . .' .. ... •I : . \ ' ' ~: I •. ..•. , ...... •' . - .. . !' .r . .. ' .•. ~ .. ~rt.:.· '·,1· ··,. .. _, " ~. .., . . . . • '* •• · .. ' . :· ..... . ~ .... ' ~· ~ .:· ... ···.t." I ~=\·· .. Attachments 1-240 .. I ... ,, .. . . .· "" .... : .. : .... · .-... -... ,_ ..: : -. ~: ... ~ ' "· · . '. •• t • • )ii •• ..... I r ... •. .. .. . ,,. , . } . I , - "i J ; .. ,. l I \. . . . .. , . t ~ r. ~ ·;,. ., ·~. .... ... , ( ~ '·. ~ .... : .... ... '• ... .· · . .. . ·. ' . . · .. " Attachments 1-241 Infringement of Our Privacy, 6320 Rio Linda • The proposed remodel is too massive and towering too close to our property • Direct view into living quarters of our house from balconies at the rear of the proposed second floor. -Into our backyard, enclosed patio, dining room, master bedroom, and master bathroom Too massive./ Too· clos·e'.! !I 'I . ' I ' ,. ,. ,- • ....... ;. -~'>;., _,,, ' -.. .. ~ No privacy! Photo 1 from our ___ .. _,, __ ~~ Q Page 1of5 ~ ~ l7 \).) Attachments 1-242 ~--- I' ...,_ .. '.._, ..... h-_, • I ' Photo 3 from our master bedroom (Remodel is too big to capture in one shot) Page 3 of 5 ,,. No privacy in our mater bedroom and master bathroom --------------- f!G_Z)t p "!'?.!' -·~-~--":.;;; ....... . Attachments 1-243 , Photo 5: Main ocean-view to be gained from the proposed second floor. This is looking toward Northwest, looking over our property and properties •' of 6328 and 6334 Rio Linda Primary objective of tbe t.~"'i$tory remo_del ~seems to gain this • oceaQ.:-v1ew. -_, .. ,, ... _, _______ _ Tall trees along the border are proposed to mitigate privacy problems. But a temptation is too great for future owners to cut down trees to gain the ocean view. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~--~-· Page 4 of 5 Attachments 1-244 • • • Infringement of Our Privacy, 6328 Rio Linda Dr. Negative impacts on compatibilities, streetscape, ocean view, privacy, etc . Proposed windows and balconies on the second floor could allow a direct view into the living quarters of our home Backyard, master bedroom, master bathroom, living room and dining room Our home will be sandwiched between two massive structures. (We will be living in a fish bowl.) • Current trees and hedges are not a reliable means for providing adequate privacy year around massiv·e! \-\ ~ -'f ~· Attachments 1-245 We do not have privacy from our neighbor located on the other side of our home {6343 Villa Rosa Dr.) Attachments 1-246 "'C I 5...... : ro . >' 5...., I ::J \ ' Q l E l e l '+-I rn I 0 a:: ro --·-> M N m \.0 +.J I ro i .£° ~ ~~ Q: -· - a ~ ....J ----. I~_......,....,.,- Attachments 1-247 We are losing all of our privacy in the southeast direction. We have already lost our privacy in the southwest direction, and if the 2 story house gets approved, it is likely someone will remodel the south-side house as a two story. "We do not want to be living in a fish bowl 11 surrounded on three sides by "Mansionazations". Attachments 1-248 Living in a Fish Bowl • No second Story. If the proposed two story structure at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive (Southeast corner of our home) is built we are totally open and exposed. • No more privacy in our backyard and living quarters. We will lose the home we fell in love with and purchased. We will never get it back. • We are already encumbered by the house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive (Southwest corner). Now if the proposed two story structure at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive is built we will have obstruction to our home from both the Southeast and Southwest directions. We will be living in a "fish bowl". • Our home that we love will be changed and gone forever. Attachments 1-249 Leza Mikhail From: ent: To: Subject: Fyi Joel Rojas Friday, May 23, 2014 4:57 PM Leza Mikhail FW: 6321 VIiia Rosa Dr., Case No. ZON2014-00064 From: William Sheh <wsheh@tectoweld.com> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 3:42:57 PM To: PlanningCommission Subject: 6321 VIiia Rosa Dr., Case No. ZON2014-00064 RE: 6321 VIiia Rosa Dr., Case No. ZON2014-00064 Dear Commissioners, I am the homeowner of 6315 Villa Rosa Dr., the immediate neighbor of 6321 Villa Rosa Dr .. On the agenda for next Tuesday evening's RPV public hearing is case No. ZON2014-00064. in which the owners of 6321 Villa Rosa is applying for variations to allow for his planned massive 2 story "mansionization" of the existing property. This expansion will greatly increase the bulk and mass of the building as well as cause several neighbors to loose some view and privacy. I would like to extend an open invitation to the commissioners to come to my property and neighborhood and have a first hand look at the planned expansion. Having a first hand look at how this huge house will impact the neighborhood, its' existing residents and the traffic on this narrow cul de sac . Sincerely, William Sheh Cell: 310-308-7399 Attachments 1-250 Leza Mikhail Joel Rojas From: ent: To: Friday, May 23, 2014 4:57 PM Leza Mikhail Subject: FW: Onsite visit to neighborhood of 6321 VIiia Rosa Dr ., Case No. ZON2014-00064 Fyi From: Akemichi Yamada <akemichi@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 4:11:32 PM To: PlanningCommission Subject: Onsite visit to neighborhood of 6321 VIiia Rosa Dr., Case No. ZON2014-00064 Dear Honorable Commissioners, We are the homeowners of 6320 Rio Linda Dr .. immediately abutting 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. We would appreciate if you would stop by at our property and see how massive the remodel appears and how our privacy is infringed. We will attempt to stay home this weekend. In the event if we are not home, please feel free to access any part of our property . Sincerely, Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada 310-544-4525 ---Original Message ----- rrom: William Sheh To: pc@rpv.com Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 3:42 PM Subject: 6321 Villa Rosa Dr .. Case No. ZON2014-00064 RE: 6321 Vllla Rosa Dr., Case No. ZON2014-00064 Dear Commissioners, I am the homeowner of6315 Villa Rosa Dr., the immediate neighbor of6321 Villa Rosa Dr .. On the agenda for next Tuesday evening's RPV public hearing is case No. ZON2014-00064. in which the owners of 6321 Villa Rosa is applying for variations to allow for his planned massive 2 story "mansionization" of the existing property. This expansion will greatly increase the bulk and mass of the building as well as cause several neighbors to loose some view and privacy. I would like to extend an open invitation to the commissioners to come to my property and neighborhood and have a first hand look at the planned expansion. Having a first hand look at how this huge house will impact the neighborhood, its' existing residents and the traffic on this narrow cul de sac. Sincerely, William Sheh CeJI: 310-308-7399= 1 Attachments 1-251 Leza Mikhail From: int: To: Cc: Subject: Kevin <kevln@c2services.com> Friday, May 23, 2014 2:00 PM PlanningCommission Leza Mikhail 6321 Villa Rosa Height Variation Dear Messrs. Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Leon, Nelson & Tomblin The packet you received for the May 27, 2014 hearing regarding 6321 Villa Rosa, case# ZON2014 -00064, includes a letter outlining our concerns with this proposed remodel. If you are in the neighborhood this weekend, Mary Beth and I invite you to stop by and personally observe some of the issues we are concerned with. It would be appreciated if you could give us some advanced notice so we can make sure we are home. Thank you. Kevin Hamilton & Mary Beth Corrado 6309 Villa Rosa RPV, CA 90275 (310) 560-6383 (cell) kevin@c2services.com l Attachments 1-252 Public Comments Attachments 1-253 PEACHTREE FAMIL"r fRUST 6321VILLA ROSA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES 90275 May 3rd, 2014 RECEIVED MAY 2 1 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPIV!:. i'f! DEPARTMEt-n This letter is to advice you that we are a neighbor of Mr. Hassan in Villa Rosa Dr We believe that Mr. Hassan's plans to improve his home will enhance the value of not only his home but also the entire neighborhood. We agree that the improvements to Mr. Hassan's home are not objectionable but to the contrary it will be good for our neighborhood.When you beautify the homes in our neighborhood it is great for the area . We desire to see the city of Rancho Palos Verdes approve Mr. Hassan plans expeditiously. Name Address //anc~ Sh1u.e {'u O;/ JL.61-ILf/o P 63'32-Vl /~ .r/2.o,>~ G33S V;f(A R:o ~C\_ (,_,_ ·tL 1 "'' 5 i) :t it tr ( (_:;> <.:32.'° \)\.QJ)D\.. 2 d<O\ ~ l~ b -7 '+ v\-l\~ fb5~ ~~ {p3J'7 0;1\a. ~ .. ""' Attachments 1-254 To: Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: Kevin Hamilton, 6309 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-541-5167, kevin@c2services.com Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Subject: Submission of Signed Petition in Opposition to the Two Story Remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Date: May 16, 2014 Dear Ms. Leza Mikhail, We are hereby submitting the signed petition in opposition to the two story remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Sincerely, 7--a~.---===- Kevin Hamilton Attachments 1-255 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE TWO STORY REMODEL AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE The undersigned are opposed to the remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive and request that the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission deny the height variation application. We request denial of the height variance for the following reasons: • The bulk and mass of the proposed 4,000 square foot structure is vastly larger than 99% of existing homes in the neighborhood. • The two story structure is not compatible with a neighborhood that is predominated by single story Ranch style homes. PROPERTY OWNER NAME /JK.'£'fl\ICH I YAMl'r'DA 'OoNliA ~~den 7ftc-,; re-D4-?J '" <: v i YI fJ e;;., M ~ I f-rM J t rvt -+--E ve.i \.~ Y\ • J \ ' -~ Yo-i-ig_ Ju~J, ck.c pQ.-{\. d d-~o Yh1 ,· e.. l="orourl~ PROPERTY ADDRESS 632..0 RID LJNPA DR/ R/tfJ41o PAlOS \/ER.D~, ID3l"I /ljv l.,11\'4.. () r f'Z.A;r\cM P"'lc.s ~ru,, £4.. b ?fA! ~ !~ L(uj)ft ~.4-J.01~ fv <: 3 o'f v I I lw JQ..4,9a, YEARS I CONTACT OWNED INFORMATION hone or Email 2.. { I 310 -5>1tf -rt-s-i.s- I').. f' Y"L-. I 910 77 7-79 I ) 2 k..~ II; "'1 (J +-Fv~· · 6 W7H t-f! @,f~ioyJe.// ltJ h 6 3 ( 0 z.br-1 {8 f tfO f(uBiJ u l / ~'>'hs. o ey,A ~ J(6--']f-/-.f,j> 61.1 o 3 ~ ,· o L .-... d 4 .t> r \ g I< p v (fl Cf 01-1-5 ] IO -3 r/-{{gg SIGNATURE DATE ~'~ "1() 6JlDI .~ 5/~/1 '1 516 //If s-:.1~/f c f~l s--8-<t( I V~ o~ 1s-~-11 J--J-1 CD Attachments 1-256 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE TWO STORY REMODEL AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE The undersigned are opposed to the remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive and request that the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission deny the height variation application. We request denial of the height variance for the following reasons: • The bulk and mass of the proposed 4,000 square foot structure is vastly larger than 99% of existing homes in the neighborhood . • The two story structure is not compatible with a neighborhood that is predominated by single story Ranch style homes. PROPERTY OWNER NAME PROPERTY ADDRESS I YEARS OWNED ·{~kq-a. e#u~e#I tP 'J!/ l>tP/ElftJ VI'{_ I s-.;z /1tJN £:.Lt:> 01{.. s~ bN IZ.J a .IA!(.--L .. (,3oS MoYJ€-n> a>r. I t5 t\/\~ 6~ I ())b l Co lG? M 61/Vrt. o •t, 17 f'"J.t'Eb °)) 0 gE: fv\ l L &22-, Mo~ b(?... 5V V\A 7A 7f1 I "(t) f'V}1)-S{I) H WFL~ d on.. I LtfXQr· 7.,"' (\ \ 0~"'·1~1 ~ l ~I M.i>....,er~ Dr' lD So...:s~e (j• .Oe>-n~E' ~lo I Mel., er<:> .Dr. Lt; St~·Mu~l ~<.,QAt.?5 '-fo8 HofJt;Ro VL: So f1 F-NIM 616-tJ ~GJE 3 CONTACT INFORMATION (Phone or Email T .5 ~Y-.ll'c#' ;(. ..... r':J"'P 2 'f f5 ve.rtzc>/1, /I e7 fY\'1ttdctwk@c~1'.V\-rl Y'-pvtbecz:r@ ao\..e.D: SIGNATURE DATE ':j-/ t3~/ {-! /) -/ o/ <)"'-JD -/~ ~~9'7h>'-/c~1c, 6' V\n~j .t "" /} --1 ~~0/!f h~vidOf.r~~ //~ I' • $f \C&.+-o i @u~,...; zcl"\. lltt:.+ I,. ~ d · 9 JJ I 511,,;;y ~ o '~ I s/, ~11~ ) !tJ 5 K Cl.AD 5 @>::Df ~ µ(:ZI I ~~ 1~ bi;o/ tf ~ ~ Attachments 1-257 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE TWO STORY REMODEL AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE The undersigned are opposed to the remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive and request that the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission deny the height variation application. We request denial of the height variance for the following reasons: • The bulk and mass of the proposed 4,000 square foot structure is vastly larger than 99% of existing homes in the neighborhood. • The two story structure is not compatible with a neighborhood that is predominated by single story Ranch style homes. PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY ADDRESS I YEARS NAME OWNED ~ '-~1$lt'.B 0..11 fo~Stf MON~ ];XL 4v ~,L NA'/£/_ fog ;;.b Iv{ 0 A[ t:4J ))/_ . ,g Uf-U-y lv1 ~ y z-_t:_ I b~>b M {),.] ££_0 ');£_. ;t ~~I 0~4-~ ~c-oLl;L &3~3~lkDk { c £(/a_ Nu/.h~uCkl 03~ 7 /t?o l·ndu ~/ a.l~u{~q._ ~q1~1 o I 6'119 Mone{() P (' 14~ ·-;;#£11///I l 6-1#7dl~PI? !J~ I /& f~ ll'J·-h-I b r 3 ~ ~~ roclA--z__ 1'JlJcf (Y/;~~( \C1115' 4/ut!cL})r. I ~ CONTACT INFORMATION (Phone or Email) G 1v) ~c+1-¥ r..J7c; ~l.1>>D e a..o(.~ ~;!)) 5.-4-t-7713 (310).S-1(_ 171? IC? it~) 3 77-ZZ-7 'L (,w) 377-ZZ!L f310 J-5fl-a88? (31o)~hl-o~J-6 51tJ-567-5 7 f? z { I'-/ A t-;c) 1-LI 9 J I SIGNATURE DATE ~~ JS?/ojv /JJ~ l~;if -~incu~I ~1°/1 'j-f?-/Y -z____p Is /!1 1L d) Attachments 1-258 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE TWO STORY REMODEL AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE The undersigned are opposed to the remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive and request that the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission deny the height variation application . We request denial of the height variance for the following reasons : • The bulk and mass of the proposed 4,000 square foot structure is vastly larger than 99% of existing homes in the neighborhood . • The two story structure is not compatible with a neighborhood that is predominated by single story Ranch style homes. PROPERTY OWNER I PROPERTY ADDRESS I YEARS CONTACT I SIGNATURE I DATE NAME OWNED INFORMATION .. , ---I s/tz_f'T--,,o~h,/ ko Ya wJ~ 63~o Kto l.!1voA t>~I :2 ( &7,o..y\ey Lo0\e. I b~i'1 ~\OU~Jk. I ~,) I ($10) s-...2.. ~ -£.(_ 7 ~2... ~ttyl~.loui ~~< (, Q:>....., ~~ s (r:i..(;1 A~v~(W u {;5I1../ rz.,o Lt ND A 1 15' .. ) (:;\~~I &i 6IB · ,. \-ila.o,r:1le. \<.irkl.-o~ I b772 \J;-1\" Kosa. 1?r. \s -, ' ~ -s ri 'l -~ ~q '2. I Y>\R s~ekt:rkh~@ ~ ... -:-1 \[om ~1111-/14- \/ ~ t-1.(,Yl,~\ L \ ~ I C ~io VI LL.A P-0 ~A ])ft I 27-I "?I <) -'>4-Ci.-3 .,_,_ G 1\ < J-L v (L-tc.-'?~S·b~ @9 ~vto.l \...c.OYI ;..,.. -~r, <+-(rcf I \J\hn ~'~ l-l l/ll 6320 Z2 I ~/o-93g-lj..).!;8 - Y1 qr\qri Sa~J~v7_j I ? 'J...1.4 11onerb J) r 3& I 3 I 0 -5;..; J -75 7 $ - ~V\ ~~-\\I'\ 10 3 \ 9 Moht"V\? \::>'< , J I I 3 10 ~ Yll-Cf 390 f..~~ev 'il~ I hl.f\\ N\tsY\~ ~ :<. es-\\.,.ev. \>,Jt)~Q ~'ffu'iVi\w I k,2l:,-'tz.:i-1 1 f ~-\'! ~ I IY @ Attachments 1-259 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE TWO STORY REMODEL AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE The undersigned are opposed to the remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive and request that the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission deny the height variation application. We request denial of the height variance for the following reasons: • The bulk and mass of the proposed 4,000 square foot structure is vastly larger than 99% of existing homes in the neighborhood. • The two story structure is not compatible with a neighborhood that is predominated by single story Ranch style homes. PROPERTY O)VNER I PROPERTY ADDRESS I YEARS I CONTACT I SIGNATURE NAME OWNED INFORMATION DATE (Phone or Email \''rJJtr /«d W--G I 62 2( /1o?J€tuft-1~ l~ofS f!.k_ tl,-. :J;e; -3' 7 .,._,. ?3 ., 1s-..-1y vb~r II/~ re :e/)r: \1-r 31o -2lf-iS;Yo sfr~y ~\I~~~ \ ·:t ~v 3 ~ . l.o ~~ .. 3 \ r 7 "L I Y"\ 1j fr\O' (U . ""' -~~·} (j Q_~1-r I< . [p ~ 6 3 fYL'O ii e '\ D p >'" • 30 b5 n'\D.. t lt\O@ \Je<iZDY\.• '<'ef 5~5/) . J 14.ot-Ce-«:hfY".1tt. ~ J-1;; DeC\.f'bc9rhS 1 (£Av(~. c~ 5(1~11 c/30, 1J1 tk_ e)JA ori 1 /~-~ )f o-K72-fo(s S- <$) Attachments 1-260 Sherry Erickson 6329 Villa Rosa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-3263 310-541-5284 sherryerickson@cox.net City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department Attn : Leza Mikhail 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Case #ZON2014-00064 Dear Leza: RECEIVE D MAY 12 201 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPME N r DEPARTMEMT May 9, 2014 I am the next door neighbor to Sam Hassan and his family. My home is on the west side of his home . First of all, I want to let you and the City know that I am 100% in favor of the remodel/rebuild and 2nct floor addition that the Hassan Family is planning to do to this property. Shortly after the sale of this home, Sam Hassan stopped by to introduce himself and to let me know what his plans were for his new home. I liked him right away and was very impressed. Upon meeting his wife, Rehab, and their children, I commented to them, that I had never met such a wonderful, friendly, caring and just plain nice group of people. They have become and continue to be my friends, a nice thing to have in a neighborhood. Unfortunately, I cannot say that about all the people who live in this area . I have been approached by several who were trying to convince me to sign their petition or go along with their dispute over the remodeling of this home. They argued on the points of privacy and view and I was actually asked about "my view" being affected. I have only a very small amount of view across Villa Rosa through the roofs of the houses there, which is fine for me. I have a two story house on my west side and another 2 story across the street from me on the South side. This new remodel and addition WILL NOT affect my view, nor will it affect my privacy in any way, nor will it cause me to feel "squeezed in- between". I think these people have forgotten what it is like to have more than 2 people in their houses, having children around. They are living in 3 -4 bedroom homes with only two people in the house. Try adding 5 more and they would maybe think differently. Maybe we should all be thinking about what we would do if we were in Sam and Rehab Hassan's shoes. I like their remodel plans and think this is a positive addition to our neighborhood, adding value to our homes! Neighbors are supposed to be friendly, supportive, kind, helpful, giving and loving. Instead, a few of the neighbors on Villa Rosa and Rio Linda are just the opposite, showing they are self-centered, selfish, uncaring, unfriendly and almost mean in their treatment of our new neighbors, the Hassan Family. My late husband, who died 4 Y:z years ago, would be appalled by what is going on and would be extremely supportive to Sam Hassan as I am. Thank you and God bless you, ~l:Jt0 6 ~ Attachments 1-261 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Megan Ebenhack <megdf4@aol.com> Thursday, May 08, 2014 1:31 PM Leza Mikhail 6321 villa rosa drive I live at 6233 monero drive and I approve of planned new structure at 6321 villa rosa drive. I feel like it will improve neighborhood. Structures are old and stagnant. Not old and charming. Bring in the new and better. Sincerely, Megan Ebenhack Sent from my iPhone 1 Attachments 1-262 Bonnie J. Hoenisch 6343 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-377-2271 90275-3365 ~~lf~ n~m;;;l'VFQ&IJ 17 May 2014 Members of the Planning Commission Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Subject: Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00064) Dear Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission, In this section of "upper" Grandview -the drives of Alvarez, "upper" Monero, Centuria, Rio Linda, and Villa Rosa -we have four cul du sacs and one, long, private road. It is a small, but very homogeneous neighborhood of common architecture and sizes. These homes were first inhabited in 1962, and are still very much sought after and "snapped-up" quickly when they are placed on the real estate market. These homes are extremely comfortable for a family to live for a lifetime, and to be a point of return time and again for family members of the residents to visit year after year for family functions and activities. Most of the homes are in conformity with one another with just a few exceptions that have been altered before there were regulations in place to assure a consistency throughout. These altered structures are huge in comparison and are considered monstrosities compared to the normal look of the neighborhood. Again, these were altered prior to a standard being enacted to continue with the normalcy of the neighborhood. Though these huge structures standout, all the families that live in them are welcomed and valued members of our community. What we can, and hope to do, is to halt or reverse additional requests for mega-changes to presently existing homes in the neighborhood. By any planned changes, even if there is a secondary or fall-back plan for a smaller "more acceptable two-story structure" to the normalcy and conformity to our neighborhood by the "new" owners of 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, this would continue to add to degrading of this consistency, along with our property values. With all the proposed changes, the additional square footage more than doubles the existing structure, allowing for the possibility of more members of their extended family to inhabit the "new" property. The population and traffic would dramatically upwardly increase, and the street parking would be unbearable, causing undo added congestion. Villa Rosa Drive is already the narrowest of all our streets now. As living at the intersection of Villa Rosa Drive and Rio Linda Drive since April 1964, I have seen too many near misses already. We have been lucky so far, but with the Attachments 1-263 added traffic pressure will only cause those possible accident situations to increase. This congestion would increase the levels of stress, resentment, and animosity between current and those future neighbors. We come to our homes at night as our place of refuge, not to a place of annoyance and irritation. Though I have no relationship, nor have I ever spoken to the family living at the residence at 6329 Villa Rosa Drive regarding the requested changes to 6321, if the huge mega-structure is completed as planned, those in 6329 would have three, huge, two-story buildings on three of their four sides -east, west and south! I, for one, would not like that. Would you care to have eyes on you wherever and whatever you do on your property from virtually all angles? I feel for them! Here is a counter-proposed change for this "new" family -there are plenty of larger lots and homes, such as the one the "new" owner proposes to reconstruct at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, up at Highridge and Crest Roads. Let them go to that locale; that type of mega-structure would fit in perfectly there. In short, please consider these concerns of mine along with those of my interested and troubled neighbors in this small community. This is a microcosm of the all the "greater" Grandview properties, and in having a monstrosity of this magnitude now and in the future would be and cause a deleterious effect on our neighborhood and the values of our properties. Thank you for your time and consideration of these points. Sincerely, Bonnie J. Boenisch Attachments 1-264 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, Andy Hsu <a.y.h@me.com > Monday, May 19, 2014 11:58 PM Leza Mikhail Opposition to remodel of 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. We own and live at 6314 Rio Linda Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes. We are writing to oppose the proposed remodeling plan of 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. on several grounds: 1. We are very concerned about our privacy. The height of the proposed two-story house and positioning of its second floor windows and balconies would allow a direct view into our home. 2. The size of the proposed structure also poses several problems for the surrounding neighborhood: 2.1. It would dwarf its neighboring homes. It would also be highly visible from Rio Linda Dr. 2.2. It would not not match the scale of surrounding residences. It would be disproportionately larger than the vast majority of homes in the neighborhood . The neighborhood is predominately single -story ranch homes . The height and design of the two-story home clearly would not be compatible with the neighborhood . We are concerned that the proposed structure would decrease the value of our property by reducing our privacy and being a detriment to the character of our neighborhood with its oversized nature. Thank you, Andrew Hsu and Gayley Louie 1 Attachments 1-265 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Ms . Mikhail, Eddie Yeh <edyehoo@yahoo.com> Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:13 PM Leza Mikhail Regarding 6321 VIiia Rosa Dr . I have being home owner and occupants of 6338 Villa Rosa Dr . since July of 1998. I am writing you in the hope that you will take into consideration the opinions of the long time residents of Villa Rosa Dr. The proposed addition at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. will greatly alter the general look and feel of this little street. The scale of the addition will add a huge and bulky second story to what was originally a very modest home. This is completly out of place for the homes on this street. I am sure the immediate neighbors of that house will not appreciate them looking into their property from that high second story vantage point. I hope the planning department will consider our view point and help maintain the character of this lovely neighborhood. Sincerely, Eddie Yeh 310-941-7927 Home Owner 6338 Villa Rosa Dr . RPV, CA 90275 1 Attachments 1-266 March 18, 2014 Leza Mikhail Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. William Sheh 6315 Villa Rosa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. Dear Ms. Mikhail, I am the owner and resident of 6315 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. A few days ago our neighbor at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive erected poles and flags to show outline and height of his proposed addition. After studying this outline for a few days, I must voice my extreme displeasure regarding the incongruous scale of this addition. The houses in this area are predominately 3-4 bedroom, single family homes or less than 2000 square feet. The front yard/driveways and backyards are ample and allow plenty of sunshine in all parts of the property. However if the proposed behemoth addition at 6321 is allowed to be built, it will cast significant shadows across my property. Looking out my study area in the front part of my house, I currently see tree tops and clear sky. If the additionn is allowed to be built, my field of view will be almost completely blocked. I will be looking at the side of his house unless I step onto the street. Additionally the total square footage of over 4000 sq. ft. is completely out of character with the neighborhood! Not to mention the complete loss of privacy when this towering second story vantage point gets to look down into the neighboring homes and yards. I am pretty sure most of the current residents of this street and those houses directly behind 6321 Villa Rosa Drive on Rio Linda Drive would have the same concerns as myself. I sincerely hope that the Planning Department will seriously consider the concerns of the long time residents of this neighborhood and make the right decision to ensure any addition are compatible with the overall style and spirit of the existing homes. William Sheh wsheh@tectoweld.com Attachments 1-267 Leza Mikhail From: jimksact@aol.com Sent: To: Monday, April 21, 2014 8:30 AM Leza Mikhail Subject: Fwd: View/6321 Villa Rosa Hi, again sorry for the mix up with the email address. Evelyn KAohler Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -----Original Message----- From: jimksact <jimksact@aol.com> To: lizam <lizam@rpv.com> Sent: Fri, Apr 18, 2014 02:13 PM Subject: Fwd: View/6321 Villa Rosa Hi,I spoke with you concerning this second story addition. Today, I had to sign that I received the plans for the addition. Could you plan to contact me at your convenience to see if there is a problem from my property. Thank you, Evelyn Kohler 27925 Alvarez Drive 3 1 0 3 77-6090 Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -----Original Message----- From: jimksact <jimksact@aol.com> To: lezam <lezam@rpv.com> Sent: Wed, Mar 12, 2014 09:48 AM Subject: Re: View/6321 Villa Rosa Hi, I just spoke about this project with you concerning if my view is going to have partial blockage. Here is my info to contact me in the future about viewing or assessing. Thank you, Evelyn Kohler 27925 Alvarez Drive, RPV 3 10 3 77-6090 1 Attachments 1-268 Sent from AOL Mobile Mail 2 Attachments 1-269 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Marian Sarkozy <masarkozy@hotmail.com> Friday, May 09, 2014 7:44 PM Leza Mikhail remodel of 6321 Villa Rosa We live on Monero Dr and although we will not see the new addition, we are very concerned that it will make our community cramped and set a precedent for future huge houses. We strongly oppose the proposed 2 story house; unfortunately we cannot attend the planning commission but wanted to express our opposition. Sincerely, Marian and Zoltan Sarkozy 6224 Monero Dr. 1 Attachments 1-270 Elizabeth Jung Kim May/ 17 / 2014 6314 Villa Rosa Dr. R.P.V CA, 90275 ellijungkim@yahoo.com Rancho Palos Verdes City To whom it may concern, I am writing this letter to say that I am very sad about what is happening between my neighbors. First I want to say is my neighbors are gentle, kind, educated, and quiet people. We have never had any problems or arguments until this matter. We have had very good neighborhood relationships! I don't want people to think or say that my neighbors are stubborn. Our neighbors respect and help each other. I am very sorry that my great neighbors are having problems and that they have to suffer. I understand that our Palos Verdes life is expensive because we decided pay for a quality life, good society, privacy, air space, sunlight, view, and good neighbors. My opinion is that 6321 Villa Rosa Drive's project is considerable. As far as I know, the project's 2nd floor expansion directly affects the other neighbors. I believe that it will really affect some neighbor's right of privacy and their right of sunlight on their yards. (And in P.V, views are crucial to the house value) I don't want to be involved this problem because I want old and new neighbors to have good relationship But, if my home was adjacent to 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, and affected like the others, I would be just as disgruntled as my neighbors are now. They want keep things right. However, I understand my new neighbor too. They are a huge family and do not have enough room and space. Attachments 1-271 I recommended to him personally to buy a house that has already been built bigger and fits his family. Anyway, I wish and expect all my neighbors to be happy as they can and to gain a win-win solution. For example, the new neighbor could alter his plan so that the others will not be as affected and their rights as homeowners in this great community will not be harmed. I love my neighbors and I hope that we will be able to have good relationship like before. I do not like this circumstance where there is a divide between the neighborhood with anger and complaints. If this plan is approved, they get a permit, and the is project done, what will happen to the community? Maybe they will hate each other for a long time with lots of problems concerning their privacy will follow. Thank you for your consideration and May God bless all of us! Sincerely, Jung Kim Attachments 1-272 Leza Mikhail From: Leza Mikhail Sent: To: Thursday, May 01, 2014 8:15 AM Leza Mikhail Subject: FW: regarding 6321 Villa Rosa From: Jackie Lee [mailto:eunjackie@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 5:34 PM To: Planning Subject: regarding 6321 Villa Rosa Hi. I am owner of 6329 Ridgepath ct Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 I received letter of notice regarding 6321 Villa Rosa Addition. I do not agree to addition, because new construction will block my view. Please consider my opinion. Thanks. Keller Williams Palos Verdes Realty Jackie Lee 550 Deep Valley #359 Rolling Hills Estate Ca 90274 Cell: 310-293-8081 E-mail: eunjackie@hotmail.com 1 Attachments 1-273 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Paul.suzie <paul.suzie@yahoo.com> Thursday, March 27, 2014 7:02 AM Leza Mikhail Subject: 6321 villa rosa drive --------Original message -------- Subject: 6321 villa rosa drive From: "Paul.suzie" <paul.suzie@yahoo.com> To: lizam@rpv.com CC: Leza, Suzanne and I own the home at 6302 viila rosa drive in Rancho Palos Verdes. while we support investing in our neighborhood, we think the planned expansion at 6321 is too high. it will block our view of the ocean. we would like to see a design for one story. Thank you, Paul and suzanne cyril 310 346 4002 1 Attachments 1-274 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Raymond M Nuber 27919 Alvarez Drive Raymond Nuber <raymond.nuber@cox.net> Saturday, May 17, 2014 4:05 PM Leza Mikhail raymond.nuber@cox.net; Jim_Kohler@aol.com ; akemichi@verizon.net; donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com; wsheh@tectoweld.com; kevin@c2services.com ; dellandsteve@cox.net My concerns about the application for a Height Variation, grading, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Ray Nuber concerns re 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Height Variation request.docx Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 May 17, 2014 Ms. Mikhail Associate Planner, Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 lezam@rpv.com Dear Ms . Mikhail : I have lived at 27919 Alvarez Drive continuously since I bought my house in 1997, and I am writing to express my concerns about the application for a Height Variation, grading, and additions to the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Collectively, the owner's requests don't honor our city's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits. Specifically, the proposed modifications to this house: 1. would result in a house with a bulk and mass, at more than double the square footage, that is not similar to the neighboring homes; this should be strongly discouraged, 2. exceed the 16 foot "by-right" height, 3. would infringe upon the privacy for the abutting residences, as well as perhaps other residences given the proposed height of this house. The privacy and view violations would be further exacerbated by the proposed balconies, 4. are not compatible with the vast majority of other homes in the area, which are predominately single story ranch homes, 1 Attachments 1-275 5. are not compatible with Ou( neighborhood's character, which is dorninated by a vast tract of homes built in 1962 from just a handful of single story ranch designs with average square footages of less than 1,800 square feet. This plan greatly exceeds the height, bulk and mass of the homes in our neighborhood, 6. would not enhance the rhyme of the streetscape. The house's bulk, mass, and height would break the rhythm of not only Villa Rosa Drive, but all the streets within view of this house, including those above Villa Rosa Drive such as my street, Alvarez Drive, 7. and do not respect the views from my property, including the ocean views that are a significant contributor to the value of my home, were a primary reason I bought my house, and a significant reason that I have chosen to continue living there. Allowing exceptions to the city's handbooks or guidelines, such as those proposed for this home addition, would be setting a very bad precedent, forever upsetting the well-designed balance of privacy and views in our city. I'm aware of at least one petition circulating with the names of many affected neighbors. Other than Peachtree Trust, I'm not aware of any significant support for this proposal in our community. Realize that the organized opposition of the affected neighbors could be significant. Please don't waste our city's precious resources to resolve this opposition through protracted due process while this proposal clearly doesn't honor our city's handbooks nor guidelines. I urge our city leadership to respect our city's handbooks or guidelines; these have served our city well. To not hold firm to these would be the crossing of the Rubicon, ushering in an era of "homes on steroids". I urge our city's leadership to not make the sort of mistake other cities already regret having made in this regard. I look forward to the opportunity to publically summarize my opposition verbally during your hearing on May 27th. Sincerely, Raymond M Nuber 2 Attachments 1-276 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Ms. Mikhail- TL <tl_90275@yahoo.com> Thursday, May 08 , 2014 8:14 PM Leza Mikhail 6321 villa rosa drive project questions and considerations I understand that there is an extremely large and out of character house expansion being proposed at 6321 Villa Rosa so the family can fit 7 people and the immediate neighbors are all understandably upset/concerned. Is it true that if approved, it sets a precedent for future height variance requests if this villa rosa project gets approved? If so, that would NOT be desirable. Views and character of the neighborhood should be considered and preserved within reason . Also wouldn't a project this big increase traffic from construction workers around a neighborhood with many small children? What will be done on Manero and Centuria (which is the way to Villa Rosa) to protect pedestrians from all this construction traffic and to ticket those who are speeding? A construction project that large will take a long time too and I think that it is in no ones interest to have to hear construction noises for that long of a time. Long term, if there are 7 people in that house, couldn't there potentially be 7 cars? Where would they park them? On their front lawn? Hog up the street? This doesn't sound very appealing. Thanks . Have a good weekend . 1 Attachments 1-277 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ms. Mikhail, Jeanne Church <jschurch2@cox.net> Friday, May 09, 2014 4:10 PM Leza Mikhail Akemichi@verizon.net; donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com; wsheh@tectoweld.com; kevin@c2services .com; dellandsteve@cox.net "Mansionization" of 6321 Villa Rosa Drive It has come to our attention that the new owners of the above property plan to remodel the existing residence from its present size to a 4,000 square foot, two story structure. This remodel is definitely not in keeping with the neighborhood of modest single story homes. We purchased our home at 6329 Manero Drive over 52 years ago and while many of the homes have undergone remodels and additions, none have done so in such extremes . This remodel is completely inconsistent with our area and would definitely be out of place among our more modest homes. I am sure these new owners could find another neighborhood that would be compatible to their life style without disrupting the harmony of what we other owners enjoy. Therefore my husband and I request that their variation permits be denied. Jeanne and Robert Church 6329 Monera Drive 1 Attachments 1-278 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Leza: Josh Golding <jgolding81@cox.net> Saturday, May 10, 2014 2:11 PM Leza Mikhail 6321 Villa Rosa Drive I am writing with regard to the proposed remodel of 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. Although I am not a direct abutting neighbor to this property, I live on Monera Dr., and Villa Rosa is part of my general neighborhood. I am very concerned, as are other neighbors of mine, about the massive nature of this remodel. I generally am in favor of home improvements that will help enhance the overall flavor and appeal of our streets. However, the size and scope of this particular remodel -in particular the height of structure-is most concerning to us. The precedent, if this passes, could allow for other variations to be granted. I have seen other neighborhoods ( ex: Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach)where large single tenant residential structures line both sides of the street--and homeowners have little or no privacy, especially if they are trying to enjoy their own back yard. I don't want this to happen on my street! My wife and I chose to move to RPV 17 years for many reasons, one of which was the neighborhood feel and privacy of the neighborhood. Had we wanted to remodel and build a massive home we would have chosen a different city-(NOT RPV!) Again, I fully support a remodel that is in keeping with the guidelines that RPV has created. But there are too many issues with this proposal for it to be approved. If the purchaser of 6321 Villa Rosa needed a larger house for his family, he/she should have bought a house in a different location that met their needs--without trying to disrupt the flavor of an existing community. Thank you. Matthew/Dawn Golding 6263 Monera Dr 310-377-4305 1 Attachments 1-279 Robert Pittman & Tomoko Akazawa 6315 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner Planning Department of City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 Re: 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Development 5/11/2014 Our concern of this proposed two story building is the possible future development of two story buildings becoming the norm in this cull de sac neighborhood, if this project was to go forward, possibly setting a standard. Our family has been going through the process of expanding our own residence. The possibility of vertical development had been weighed but considering our neighbors and the point of this letter, we opted to expand the building envelope within other options available to us. We need to enforce the CCR's of RPV to preserve our West elevation views no matter what they, the views, may be. A two story development could set the precedent for future vertical development that may not only obstruct what view each of us may have presently but would definitely affect the value of properties; benefiting the developed and decrementing the value of surrounding properties. The owners have stated that the present structure has minimal space for their extended family. That is a weak stance due to this should have been considered at the time of their recent purchase of the property and further research into the CCR's of RPV of such a development would have been known as a risk. If square footage needs to be extended, there are other options that could be considered as well as the option of development vertically down, but not vertically up. We oppose any upward development to any structure in this neighborhood that impedes into any West elevation view of any property. Sincerely, Robert Pittman, Tomofio ..'Afiazawa Robert Pittman & Tomoko Akazawa Attachments 1-280 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: (case no. ZON2014-00064) 6321 Villa Rosa Jong Kim <jck1020@hotmail.com> Monday, May 12, 2014 4:27 PM Leza Mikhail; sookie kim; jong kim Ht. Variation and Site Plan Review There are circulation of Petitions. "Objection of the Project" is the theme and I agree to support the petition . The major arguments are that: 1) The height of the structure (25ft. Sin.) does not compatible with the surrounding and/or it blocks neighbors outdoor view. 2) 4000 sq. ft. building is too bulky and massive to an average size of 1800 sq.ft. in this area. 3) Proposed windows and balconies on the second floor could allow a direct view into living quarters of neighboring residents. I am residing at 6329 Rio Linda and located approximately 200 ft North of the project site. I clearly see mock up building outline high in the sky from our parking lot, porch and bed room etc . I would imagine where about of balcony on the second floor. One can CCTV our life very easily. It is infringing someone's life and is against the law. Is anyone found agreeable merits of this project? I nod the proverb "It ain't broken, don't fix it" Return of "Mansionization" or "Homes on steroids" trend may prevail in larger locale. However our neighbor should not be affected with RPV's proper policy proceeding. Thank you, JCK 1 Attachments 1-281 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Attn : Ms . Leza Mikhail , MSouthg989@aol.com Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:36 AM Leza Mikhail 6321 villa rosa dr. project We received the letter regarding the construction of a massive home at 6321 villa rosa d r. We oppose the project and say no to the project. Mike Southgate 6337 Rio Linda Dr. RPV CA 90275 1 Attachments 1-282 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Rubyjulie44@aol.com Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:33 PM Leza Mikhail Fwd: Fw: Reply: Concerns Leza Mikhail Associate Planner Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 Dear Ms. Mikhail, Although I have no opposition to two story homes in general, I do have concerns about, the proposed remodel of 6321 Villa f?osa which woulcl turn a 1,434 sq foot home into a two story "mega twuse "of 4,L13 sq.feet complete wit/1 four balconies and a 47 sq foot front porch I feel that this proposed structure as shown1 does not meet RPV City guidelines or their Founding spirit and permits/variances should be denied until changes in the plans are made. 1. The sheer roof height of 25.5 feet dwarfs adjacent homes on Villa Rosa and disrupts the skyline of Rio Linda Drive. The Los Verdes tract, built in .1962 was designed to be single story ranch hon'les and has largely rernained that way. Addition of a total second story remodel is incompatible with neighboring homes and may adversely affect their future value. 2. The original proposed sq. footage of 4,031 was over double the average Villa Rosa home ( 1826 sq.feet.). The lot is a mere 7000 sq feet BUT now the currently submitted plans call for a 4r113 sq.toot residence. This is an additional 82 sq. feet ! 3. Proposed plans show the project to be architecturally incompatible (in its shaper mass, exterior rnaterials1 finish, roofline) with existing Villa Rosa hon1es. Views or the project show an institutional, line to line construction with a postage 1 Attachments 1-283 stamp size front yatv. 4. Adcling Four balconies of 45 sq.feet~ 55. 7 sq. feet ,61.5 sq.feet,and 72.2 sq. feet acids adclitional mass and bulk to the structltre1 not to mention invading the air space 1 views and privacy neighboring homes. Two of the balconies protrude ( second story) 5.1 and 6. 7 feet from the house but are under the f~oofline {?) further obliterating any privacy/view that adjacent properties currently enjoy. 5. Proposed side clearances of 7. 6 feet and a mere 5 foot' could prevent quick access by fire and medical services in time of need. We have fires up here" Those clearances are not adequate for quick response, 6. Proposed retaining wall f1eight/ construction/soil removal may well endanger this structure as well as neighboring property. I saw no soil/ earth studies attached to the plans indicating that a certified evaluation had been done. Land shifts up here constantly. One home on Alvarez slid off Us foundation during a very recent remode/1 and had to be stabilized with a huge crane which held up the house while an attempt to slide it back the slab was made. 7he crane remained for a Jong time. 7, The proposed plans of 4-21·-14 for 6321 Villa Rosa say that the current one story ( minus the roof ) will remain, with a S6S foot addition made and some interior walls demolished. The addition of a second story @ 2,098 feet will requlre steel girders to stablize and strengthen the original foundation slab as well as the walls of the existing first floor. I saw no such materials in this proposed plan. I was told about the need for steel girders by an architect I employed when I was considering an addition to my own home years ago. 8. This architect further stated that he did not believe my street would physically support the weight of the tn:rnsport vehicles needed, ( to bring U1ose girders ) or would be allowed on a residential street. Villa Rosa ln not a commercial street, narrower than Rio Linda, It would likely have to be completely repaved after such construction occurred. A 2 to 3 inch It asphalt slurry" won't do the trick. In conclusion, I am opposed to the "McMansionfzation" of Rancho Palos Verdes. Arcadia, Monrovia/ Temple City have experienced Mansionization to their comrnunities and it is not pretty. This " 2 Attachments 1-284 Trust fl apparently has the resources to turn a 1,439 sq.foot 3 bedroom 2 bathroom home (purchase price of around $ 842,00.) into a 5 bedroom and bathroom home of 4,113 sq. feet. (The math is staggering ) To some of my neighbors this smacks of a possible fl Flip 11 for profit venture . I would hope that permits and variances would be put on hold while plans that do not destroy Villa Rosa's character are developed and resubmitted. Thank you for your time in reading this. Sincerely,, Julie Owens Rice 6300 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes1 California 3 Attachments 1-285 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Leza Vincent Liu <vince88168@gmail.com> Thursday, May 15, 2014 4:24 PM Leza Mikhail opposition of the proposed the remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. I am the owner of the house at 6320 Villa Rosa Dr., and I am writing this to oppose the proposed remodeling of a huge 4,000+ square ft 2-story house by my new neighbor at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. Just by looking at the wooden bars placed on the top of the existing house, I can imagine that I will lose my sky view of the north side of our house. The proposed height of the house is obvious not compatible with the heights of other existing houses in the neighborhood. Also, the proposed 4,000+ square ft in size will make our street look very unbalanced. As a cross street neighbor, I have no problem with how large my new neighbor wants to push the size of the house on his lot on a I-story building, but I do strongly oppose an unnecessary 2- story building of the proposed size. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 310-544-3226 or vince88168@gmail.com. Thanks. You kind consideration of my comments in the decision of approving the proposed plan is very much appreciated. Best Regards , Vincent Liu Owner/Resident at 6320 Villa Rosa Dr. 1 Attachments 1-286 Date: April 15, 2014 To: Leza Mikhail Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 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 Ms. Mikhail, Thank you for taking the time to come out and look at the issues that are of concern to my wife and I. As indicated, we are opposed to the remodeling of the existing 1,434 sq. ft. Ranch style structure to a 4,113 sq. ft. two story structure. The basis for that opposition is detailed below. 1) View Destruction Currently, we have a view of the ocean and horizon from both the living room and dining rooms. That view is approximately due West towards the ocean. This view allows for visually observing both the ocean and horizon sunsets. As reflected by Photograph 1 & 2, that view would be vi1tually eliminated by the proposed structure. The red dotted line shows the outline of the structure per flagging. Photograph 1. Dining room view taken at window. Camera: Nikon D5100, Lens: Nikkor 18-55mm, no filters; Lens setting: 50mm; Lens height: 63 inches; Date: 04-08-14 (#726) 1 Attachments 1-287 Photograph 2. Dining room view taken at window. Camera: Nikon D5100, Lens: Nikkor 18-55mm, no filters; Lens setting: 50mm; Lens height: 63 inches; Date: 03-11-14 (#629) 2) Violation of Privacy The proposed two story structure contains windows facing directly at our living room and dining room. While making the 2nd story windows translucent is supposed to provide privacy, it is an incomplete solution. Specifically, the windows facing our property are sliding and will allow for direct viewing into our home if they are opened. The use of translucent windows on the 2nd story is a temporary solution. A change of those windows, years down the road, becomes a code enforcement issue that relies on long term neighbor knowledge of specific code restrictions. There is also reverse privacy concern for inside silhouetting, through the translucent windows, that may be unwanted or offensive to those outside. Finally, there are balconies on the rear of the second story which also allow direct view into our dining and living rooms. 3) Excessive bulk and mass The original housing development was comprised of 1,400 to 1,900 sq. ft. Ranch homes. The proposed 4, 113 sq. ft., two story structure, is completely incompatible with those homes. Table 1 below provides the LA County Assessor home sizes for both Villa Rosa and Rio Linda streets. As the table shows, the proposed 4, 113 sq. ft. structure is over double what the average home size (1,816 sq. ft.) is for this area. The proposed structure vastly exceeds even three (3) standard deviations (3,442 sq. ft.) in size. The combination of five (5) bedrooms and five (5) bathrooms are also are outside of anything in the neighborhood. 2 Attachments 1-288 Table 1 Address Sq.Ft. Bedrooms Bathrooms 6303 Villa Rosa 2,415 4 3 6302 Villa Rosa 1,434 3 2 6309 Villa Rosa 1,870 4 2 6308 Villa Rosa 1,544 3 2 6315 Villa Rosa 1,906 4 2 6314 Villa Rosa 1,861 4 3 6321 Villa Rosa 1,434 3 2 6320 Villa Rosa 1,504 3 2 6326 Villa Rosa 1,434 3 2 6329 Villa Rosa 1,816 4 2 6332 Villa Rosa 2,445 5 3 6343 Villa Rosa (1) 4,600 3 2 6338 Villa Rosa 1,524 3 2 6344 Villa Rosa 2,288 3 3 6350 Villa Rosa 1,816 4 2 6358 Villa Rosa 1,684 3 2 6334 Rio Linda 1,434 3 2 6328 Rio Linda 1,434 3 2 6320 Rio Linda 1,434 3 2 6314 Rio Linda 1,734 4 2 6308 Rio Linda 1,852 5 3 6304 Rio Linda 1,684 3 2 6300 Rio Linda 1,434 3 2 6303 Rio Linda 1,434 3 2 6307 Rio Linda 1,903 3 3 6315 Rio Linda 1,734 4 3 6329 Rio Linda 1,684 3 2 6337 Rio Linda 1,684 3 2 6343 Rio Linda 1,816 4 2 6403 Rio Linda 1,684 3 2 6409 Rio Linda 1,816 4 2 6419 Rio Linda 1,816 4 2 6423 Rio Linda 1,816 4 2 6422 Rio Linda 1,816 4 2 6418 Rio Linda 1,906 4 2 6410 Rio Linda 1,684 3 2 Average 1,816 3.5 2.2 Std. Dev. 542 0.6 0.4 (1) Square footage per RPV Planning A visual reference to the size incompatibility of the proposed structure is provided below. As reflected in Photograph 3, flagging demonstrates how the structure would dwarf the existing homes on either side. 3 Attachments 1-289 Photograph 3. Street view. Camera: Nikon D5100, Lens: Nikkor 18-55mm, no filters; Lens setting: 18mm; Lens height: 68 inches; Date: 03-26-14 (#666) 4) Incompatibility with existing neighborhood With only a few exceptions, the development remains comprised of single story Ranch homes. What few exceptions there are, were pre November 1989 additions. For the last two and a half (2 1 /2 ) decades, the neighborhood has remained stable with almost exclusively single story Ranch style homes. Some typical examples of these Ranch homes on Villa Rosa and Rio Linda are provided in Table 2 below. See Appendix A for full size photo's. 4 Attachments 1-290 Taken as a whole, the design of this structure is vastly different from any of the existing homes. The look and feel of the entire structure is clearly out of place and not in the character of the neighborhood. Architectural incompatibilities include: The design is a two (2) story Mediterranean style with four (4) protruding balconies, two (2) front and two (2) rear. There are no other homes of this style in the neighborhood. The front entryway is a grandiose, one and a half (1 112 ) story tall, design that is unlike anything in the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed structure pushes the limits of every aspect, including setbacks, lot utilization, height and scale. S) Additional considerations Villa Rosa is a short cul-de-sac street approximately 30 feet wide. The addition of two story homes on this narrow street would eliminate the open character and setting of the street. Specifically, the addition of two story structures on the street would yield a closed, canyon like feel that is inconsistent with both the existing and original design of the neighborhood. This narrow street, being on a grade, is particularly susceptible to the canyon feel syndrome. The addition of a 5 bedroom structure on the street will present a parking problem. The existing two (2) car garage will require the family to park vehicles on an already narrow, curved, crowded street. The addition of a disproportionately large structure adds to the overall home size average and promulgates mission creep to increase the average neighborhood structure size. 5 Attachments 1-291 Lastly, the city needs lv ~onsider the costs of repairing the stret.. dSsociated with a major house demolition and rebuilding on a narrow, cul-de-sac street. Specifically, heavy equipment turning and backing in a confined space on the narrow street and cul-de-sac. 6 Attachments 1-292 APPENDIX A 7 Attachments 1-293 8 Attachments 1-294 9 Attachments 1-295 10 Attachments 1-296 11 Attachments 1-297 12 Attachments 1-298 13 Attachments 1-299 14 Attachments 1-300 15 Attachments 1-301 16 Attachments 1-302 17 Attachments 1-303 18 Attachments 1-304 19 Attachments 1-305 20 Attachments 1-306 21 Attachments 1-307 May8, 2014 Ms. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner, Planning Department City of RPV 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Ms. Mikhail, A!Cl!IVl!D MAY 0 9 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME;::NT This letter is to inform you that I am opposed to the planned two-story remodel by the Peachtree Family Trust at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, RPV, 90275. I have looked over their proposal and oppose it for the following reasons: NCH page 21, B.1 which states: "The height of the structure should be compatible with the established building heights in the neighborhood." The original housing development of this neighborhood was comprised of single-story ranch homes in 1962 and remains predominately so today. The Peachtree Family Trust's proposed two-story structure is completely incompatible with the current homes. NCH Page 28, which states: "The bulk and mass of the new residence or an addition to an existing residence should be similar to neighboring structures, not overwhelming or disproportionate in size. A design that is out of character with the neighborhood is strongly discouraged. ihe Peachtree Family Trust's proposed 4,000 sq. ft. structure is over double what the average home size (1,820 sq. ft.) is for this neighborhood. The Peachtree Family Trust's proposed structure should be compatible with immediate neighborhood character. "Neighborhood Character" is defined to consider the existing characteristics of an area including the following: PHV Page 15 which states: ( a)Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures. (b) Architectural styles, including fa~ade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, the number of stories, and building materials. NCH Page 27 which states: The structure should enhance the rhyme of the streetscape. PHV page 15 which states: The height ofa structure that is above 16 feet in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. NCH page 21 B.5 & PHV page 13 which states: The height of a structure should be carefully designed to respect views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. Attachments 1-308 With the above notations I believe the Peachtree Family Trust's proposed structure would counter every guidance set forth by the NCH and PHV. The Peachtree Family Trust's proposed architecture is unlike any existing in the neighborhood. Their proposed new structure would stand like a huge canyon wall, dwarfing existing homes on either side. Their proposed windows and balconies on the second floor could allow a direct view into living quarters of neighboring residences. And, their proposed second story blocks ocean views from other neighbors located on the east side. Ms. Mikhail, it's obvious what's going on here. 'The Peachtree Family Trust bought a small home with the intention to flip the house by building a huge monstrosity incompatible with the neighborhood in order to make a profit. Our single-story ranch-style community has survived this type of abdominal molestation for 22 years and I hope that we will have the city's support in keeping it that way. If indeed, the home was too sma\\ for their famUy of seven, as stated in their letters to me, they should have looked for a home and neighborhood more compatible for their needs instead of causing an upheaval in our neighborhood. Unless a family of seven has financial restrictions, it's ridiculous that they would even consider a home in our neighborhood. And, I think it's obvious from their proposed build that they do not have any financial limitations. <yo for!~sideration, --....:i;~.-..... ..atm ~- 6240 Monero Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-541-3175 Attachments 1-309 RECEIVED Attachments 1-310 Attachments 1-311 To: Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Marylyn Ginsburg, Property Owner For rental home at: 27937 Alvarez Drive, RPV RECEIVED 00MMllltllt11'W'1ll)8V~LOPMi.'" ; !DB~a;!lMf;{I;? Mailing address: Office -325 West 7th Street, San Pedro, CA 90731 RE: PROPOSED ADDITION TO A HOME AT: 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, RPV It has recently come to my attention that a new property owner, near a property that I own in Rancho Palos Verdes on Alvarez Drive, has applied for a building permit requiring a variance for same. This is due to a considerable size change from that which would be compatible with the current neighborhood. It seems most remarkable that Mr. Hassan was unaware of the size of his family (seven as per his letter ... ) prior to purchasing a home in a neighborhood comprised of rather modest homes -presuming he had looked at the one on Villa Rosa before he purchased it. (It is supposedly only 1,434 square feet in size.) There are certainly many nearby neighborhoods on the Palos Verdes Peninsula where there are homes for sale which could easily have accommodated such a large family. One cannot help but wonder -why then would he propose to totally change the look -the aesthetics, if you will -of the neighborhood by trying to build such an out-of-scale, imposing structure there? I would agree with his nearby neighbors that such a drastic change to the original housing development in this particular neighborhood is incompatible and I would therefore oppose his plans to do this project. He has many other choices available to him and the folks on Villa Rosa deserve to keep the scale of their neighborhood structures intact. Marylyn Ginsburg (Grand House Management Co. -Office Phone: 310-519-1156) Attachments 1-312 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Ms. Mikhail, Beatrice & Joe Marino <bgmarino@verizon.net> Monday, May 19, 2014 1:39 AM Leza Mikhail remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. RPV My wife and I have lived on Manero Dr. in RPV since 1980 and are very concerned over the proposed 4,000 ft. remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. This massive structure is not only out of proportion and overwhelming in this neighborhood but also appears to violate the existing guidelines for homes in this area . My wife and I feel that if allowed, this construction would also encourage other massive remodels thereby ruining the privacy and/or views of surrounding homes. In the long run the whole cohesive character of our current neighborhood could be affected. We already have witnessed first hand what this type of remodel does to a neighborhood. I have an aunt who currently lives in a neighborhood that started out similar to ours, of one story homes in the Westchester area near LAX. For the past ten years or so, many homes have been remodeled as massive two story structures and this unfortunately, has changed the entire character of the neighborhood . These large remodeled homes now dwarf the "smaller" homes making the entire neighborhood seem crowded, lacking in space and privacy. The two story home that was remodeled next to my aunt's home has windows and a balcony that look directly down on my aunt's three bedrooms and yard. The privacy of her home has been severely damaged. This entire neighborhood has lost the cohesive charm and character it once had. The proposed Villa Rosa remodel is completely out of character in our neighborhood and if allowed, can open the way for other similar out of character remodels here. Currently, homes in our area are compatible and in character with one another allowing for a sense of spaciousness and privacy. Let's keep it this way! Very truly yours, Joe and Beatrice Marino 6203 Monera Dr. RPV 1 Attachments 1-313 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Ms. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Ms. Mikhail, Eva Muchnick <eva.muchnick@gmail.com> Sunday, May 18, 2014 9:03 PM Leza Mikhail House at 6321 Villa Rosa We take our dogs on a daily walk in our neighborhood and have recently noticed that the house t 6321 Villa Rosa is already in the process of being demolished and the new one, proposed to be three and a halftimes larger, is being readied for construction. A 4,000 square foot house on a lot meant for a single story home of approximately 1,400 square feet is out of all proportion, and though a precedent for an apartment-size house has already been set on Villa Rosa, that does not justify allowing another-or others-to be built. Besides the obvious lack of neighborhood compatibility of the proposed Villa Rosa structure with that of its neighbors, our main concerns are the egregious loss of privacy for the neighbors living adjacent to 6321 Villa Rosa, with its roofline looming visibly from our street, Rio Linda Drive, and serious health concerns. We will all be exposed to noise and dust pollution, including the well known, dangerous carcinogen, silica, prevalent in our soil. We therefore ask that the City Council/Planning Commission reject the proposed plans and try to reach a more reasonable conclusion. Very truly yours, Eva J. Muchnick, Dr. P.H. and Carl N. Muchnick, M.D. 1 Attachments 1-314 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: From : David and Bonnie Foroudi david foroudi <adforoudi@yahoo.com> Sunday, May 18, 2014 8:50 PM Leza Mikhail Reference: ZON2014-00064. Concerns on the proposed remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. 6403 Rio Linda Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 To: Ms . Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Date : May 18, 2014 Subject: Concerns on the proposed remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. Reference: ZON2014-00064 Dear Ms. Leza, We have lived at 6403 Rio Linda Drive continuously for 18 years, and I am writing to express my concerns on this remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. The proposed two-story remodel is simply too massive, and is not compatible with typical one-story houses in this neighborhood. The proposed remodel exceeding 4,000 square-feet on the small lot will create many negative impacts. Villa Rosa is a very narrow curvy street. The massive house on this narrow uphill street will create a canyon effect, and will degrade the streets-cape. We have looked at the mock-up of the proposed remodel from the abutting property at 6320 Rio Linda Drive. The massive remodel is towering over the abutting house. It will infringe the privacy of occupants of the abutting residence in their living quarters namely the enclosed patio, the dining room, the master bedroom, the master bathroom, and most importantly the backyard. The remodel will severely infringe the privacy of another abutting property at 6328 Rio Linda Drive. This house will be sandwiched between two massive structures. The houses located on the East side of the proposed remodel will have their ocean views blocked . It is clear that the proposed remodel violates the guidelines and the spirit of the "Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook" and the "Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits" of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. We ask the City to have this remodel scaled down considerably, such as denying any two-story design and encouraging a single-story design. Sincerely, 1 Attachments 1-315 David and Bonnie Foroudi 6403 Rio Linda Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-377-6688 2 Attachments 1-316 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindley Ruddick <elruddick@cox.net> Sunday, May 18, 2014 8:42 PM Leza Mikhail SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2014-00064) AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2014-00064) AT 6321 VILLA ROSA DRIVE After viewing the plans on file with the City and viewing the site from the street, we are of the opinion that this project is not compatible with the neighborhood and should not be approved as submitted. Since the proposed project appears to be significantly larger than the surrounding homes, we feel that it presents a massive and bulky structure due to the small lot, minimal side and front setbacks especially with the proposed structure over the existing garage and shows excessive height. The second story height and higher lot elevation along with the balconies may cause unreasonable reduction of privacy of the surrounding properties. The Mediterranean style of architecture does not appear to be consistent with the majority of single story ranch style houses that make up the surrounding area. When viewed from the street, it appears there may be view impairment from the residences in the 27900 block of Alvarez Drive. Lindley & Sandra Ruddick 1 Attachments 1-317 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: The Glenn Family <samuel.glenn2@verizon.net> Sunday, May 18, 2014 8:18 PM Leza Mikhail Carolglenn; sb.glenn@verizon.net Glenn's response: Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case N. ZON2014-00064) Response Height Variation Grading Permit & Site Plan Review -Case N. ZON2014-00064.pdf.pdf Ms Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner May 18, 2014 Planning Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case N. ZON2014-00064) Dear Ms. Mikhail, In accordance with the City Notice dated April 21, 2014, we, Sam and Carol Glenn, are providing at response to the notice by May 19, 2014. Please see the attached signed letter for consideration in the ongoing review and evaluation of the the proposed addition at 6321 Villa Rosa. We look forward to the public hearing scheduled for May 27, 2014 and will provide our verbal inputs to the proposal as well. 19 year residents of RPV, Sam and Carol Glenn 1 Attachments 1-318 Ms Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner Planning Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 May 18, 2014 Subject: Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case N. ZON2014- 00064) Dear Ms. Mikhail, After reviewing the City Notice dated April 21, 2014, the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook dated May 6, 2003, the constructed Silhouette; and a set of exterior drawings for the site, we find it hard to see how this project meets the intent of being compatible with the existing neighborhood. During our own search for a house to raise our family in, the single story neighborhood that we purchased in and have live in for almost 19 years was a key characteristic which drew us to this neighborhood. Further, these single family houses where situated on a terraced design to provide all neighbors privacy and the feel of open space. Finally, our house has beautiful views for our kitchen and backyard which is why the back of the house is basically made of glass to enjoy the features. In the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, Design Tips, Section I, Scale of Surrounding Residence, item A, Mass and Scale, page 18, paragraph 5, Neighbors' Views, it states, "As such, in cases where a Height Variation application is required for a proposed project that exceeds the 16-foot "by-right" height limit, views from a neighboring residence should be reserved by carefully positioning a new structure or addition, and by limiting the project's width, depth, and height." A proposed height of 25 feet 5 inches, not including the fire place cap, does not take Neighbors' view into account for residence located uphill East of the property. From our Kitchen window we will have an excellent view of the back of the osed box as we loose our view. Attachments 1-319 This hieght is also discussed in Design Tips, Section Il, Architectural Styles and Materials, item B, Height of Structures, page 25, paragraph 7, which states, "The height of a structure should not result in a significant loss or infringement of privacy on a neighboring property." The second story with windows only raised to 5 feet above the floor will provide a view into the back of our residence and thus into our bed room which was build to take advance of the open spaces provided by single storied terraced homes. (The terraced hill has the potential to align second story windows with neighbors to the East. Finally, Design Tips, Section Il, Architectural Styles and Materials, Item F, Apparent Bulle and Mass, page 28, paragraph 1 state, "The bulk and mass of a new residence or an addition to an existing residence should be similar to neighboring structures, not overwhelming or disproportionate in size. A design that is out of character with the neighborhood is strongly discouraged." From the sides and back of the silhouette, how can one not say the project is disproportionate to and overwhelming of the neighboring single story properties. How can a 4000 square foot residence be considered proportionate to the approximate 1800 average square foot houses adjacent to the location for the project? Some will say there is a tree is in front of the building, but trees are only temporary items in RPV landscapes. Some will say reducing the structure 9 feet 5 inches to 18 feet will not restore our view but it will make a difference to the feel of the size of and open space. Some will say the windows will be clerestory, but windows are easily replaced with clear or tented treatments at a later date. At the end of the day, this proposed McMansion for our neighborhood will start the change of single story residences community to 2 story McMansion with a feel of the neighborhoods in Manhattan Beach with two story houses consuming the lots. If this project is approved, Attachments 1-320 we lose the neighborhood we so were so blessed to raise our family in and have so looked forward to enjoying as we look forward to transition into our retirement years in this quaint neighborhood. Sam Glenn and Carol Glenn Attachments 1-321 Compatibility Analysis on Proposed Remodeling At 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes By Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada, 6320 Rio Linda Dr., RPV By Donald & Betty Brogdon, 6328 Rio Linda Dr., RPV, By Steve & Dell Nash, 6334 Rio Linda Dr., RPV February 3, 2014 1.0 Introduction The proposed remodeling plan for the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive is to convert the existing single-story house into a two-story house. The plan also includes relocating the living quarters on to the new second floor. The intent of the remodeling seems to gain a new viewing area from the back of the new second floor, covering the view angle of the quarter circle roughly from north to west, looking over the abutting residences mainly at 6320 Rio Linda Drive, 6328 Rio Linda Drive and 6334 Rio Linda Drive. Since the proposed two-story house would exceed the 16-foot height limit (by- right height limit), and therefore the owner at said property is applying for the "Height Variance Permit". 2.0 Summary of the Impacts The proposed remodeling plan does not meet the guidelines set forth in the Height Variance Guidelines Handbook and the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook because of incompatibility with surrounding structures and infringing the privacy of the occupants in abutting residences as described below. 2.1 Incompatible with surrounding neighborhood character The bulk and mass of the proposed two-story house is overwhelming and disproportionate in size compared to neighboring structures, and is incompatible with surrounding neighborhood character in the Los Verdes area in which original structures are all single-story houses. The proposed structure will overwhelm the next-door house at 6329 Villa Rosa Drive. It does not enhance the rhyme of the street landscape of Villa Rosa Drive. The negative impact of the proposed two- story house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive will be greater on the Rio Linda Drive side than on the Villa Rosa Drive side. The disproportionate bulk of the proposed remodeling will degrade the curb appeals of the many houses along the Rio Linda Drive because the silhouette of the proposed remodeled house would overshadow many houses. The appearance of the proposed two-story house is too massive and *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 1of22 Attachments 1-322 overwhelming when viewed from the backyards of the abutting residences such as 6320 Rio Linda Drive, 6328 Rio Linda Drive, and 6329 Villa Rosa Drive. 2.2 Infringement of the privacy of occupants of abutting residences The proposed remodeling will severely and unreasonably infringe the privacy of the occupants mainly at 6320 Rio Linda Drive, 6328 Rio Linda Drive and 6329 Villa Rosa Drive, in which the primary living quarters (the living room, dining room, the screened porch, the master bedroom and the bathroom) are located at the rear of the houses. The privacy of the occupants in their backyards of these abutting residences will be completely infringed. The infringement of the privacy is greater on the Rio Linda Drive side than on the Villa Rosa Drive side. 3.0 Recommendations/Requests for Modifying the Proposed Plan We would like to request the City of RPV to reject the current proposed two-story design, and to deny the application for the height variance. We would like to recommend the plan modification to incorporate a single-story design. 3 .1 Modify the plan to a single-story design The purpose and the spirit of the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook are to prevent this type of the invasive remodeling from being implemented. The plan should be modified to the single-story design. The modified plan should make the maximum use of the lot within what allowed under the city codes, ordinances and regulations. Expanding the house using the single-story design will not have negative impacts as described for the current proposed two-story design. 3 .2 Do not allow two-story design of any kind A two-story design of any kind should not be permitted. Once a two-story house were built at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive without windows, sliding doors or balconies at the back side, nothing would prevent the owner from adding windows and balconies at the back side in the future without getting the city permits as long as the size of the balcony is less than 80 square footage and not protruding more than 6 feet. The temptation and incentive are always there for the owner to install windows and balconies on the second floor in the future, since doing so will gain the new ocean view (at the expense of the privacy of occupants in abutting residences). Once a two-story house were built, occupants of the abutting residences would not have any recourse of preventing the owner at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive from installing windows, sliding doors and/or balconies at the back side in the future. *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 2 of22 Attachments 1-323 4.0 Detailed Discussions 4 .1 Characters of the neighborhood This neighborhood (the Los Verdes area) was initially built in 1962 giving considerations to maintaining privacy of residents and providing some ocean views if available. Houses are modest in size, typically single-story, but they are relatively compatible to each other. It is a cozy neighborhood and it is not meant for houses with massive size. The houses are located on the sloping terrain, but adjacent houses are cleverly arranged so that the houses at the higher-elevation lots would not invade the privacy of the houses at the lower-elevation lots. The more we study the arrangement of the entire Los Verdes area, the more we are impressed by the wisdom of the original developer. Unfortunately, there are some remodeled houses in the Los Verdes area that are two-story high often disturbing compatibility and harmonious appearance of the neighborhood. This may be because the remodeling was done from the self-centered point of view of the person remodeling it. Currently there are no remodeled two-story houses on the Rio Linda Drive, the Centuria Drive, or the Monero Drive east of Granvia Altamira. Figure 4.1-1 shows the current view of Rio Linda Drive. Figure 4.1-2 shows the current view of Centuria Drive. Figure 4.1-3 shows the current view of Monero Drive. These photos show the cozy Los Verdes neighborhood with modest size houses. igure 4.1.-1 Rio Linda *See the parcel map at the end for addresses . Page 3 of22 Attachments 1-324 l1t1; Figure 4.1-2 Centuria Figure 4.1-3 Monero However, the Villa Rosa Drive is an exception in which there are three houses with two-story additions. One is at 6332 Villa Rosa Drive where the addition was made above the garage with a terrible pop-up appearance (Figure 4.1-4). The second is at 6314 Villa Rosa Drive where the addition was made above the garage and the adjacent area. In both cases, the appearances of additions are not compatible with the character of the neighborhood, and do not enhance the rhyme of the street landscape. However, they do not cause invasion of the privacy, because the back of these house are facing the Hawthorne Boulevard and there are no abutting residences at their back. *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 4 of22 Attachments 1-325 Figure 4.1-4 Addition with pop-up design on Villa Rosa The third remodeled house is at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive, which is a massive two-story house, totally incompatible with the characters of the neighborhood. The house was prohibited to have windows facing the abutting house at 6328 Rio Linda Drive to minimize the invasion of the privacy. The ocean view from the addition at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive is mostly toward west, not toward the house at 6328 Rio Linda Drive which is toward northeast. Therefore, there is no temptation or incentive for the owner at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive to install any windows later. The bulk and mass of the two-story house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive is overwhelming and disproportionate to neighboring houses as seen in Figure 4.1-5 and Figure 4.1-6 below in which the yellow house is said remodeled house. The rhyme of the street landscape is broken up by the yellow house. *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 5 of22 Attachments 1-326 Figure 4.1-5 Remodeled two-story house at 6343 Villa Rosa Dr. (Yellow one) - Figure 4.1-6 Two-story house overwhelming the house on Rio Linda The yellow house has the balcony facing the street, Villa Rosa, since the ocean is in that direction. If there were a house immediately in front of the balcony, the privacy of the abutting residence would be infringed. The house next to the yellow two-story house is at 6334 Rio Linda Drive. From Figure 4.1-5, it can be seen that the privacy in the backyard of the smaller house is infringed . Figure 4.1-6 is another view of the same two houses seen from the Rio Linda Drive side. The overwhelming size of the yellow house is shadowing over the *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 6of22 Attachments 1-327 house on Rio Linda Drive. The curb appeal of the smaller house is degraded. This caused the property value of the house on Rio Linda Drive to decrease. The other side of Villa Rosa Drive across the street can be seen in Figure 4.1-7 below. The street-view is much better with a good rhyme of the street landscape. The remodeling at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive was done before 1993. Since then, the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and the Height Variation Guidelines are created to prevent this type of intrusive, invasive, and massive remodeling that is not compatible with the characters of the neighborhood. Figure 4.1-7, Looking at the west side of Villa Rosa Drive 4.2 Detailed Discussion on Incompatibility with surrounding neighborhood character As stated earlier, the bulk and mass of the proposed two-story house is overwhelming and disproportionate in size compared to neighboring structures, and is incompatible with surrounding neighborhood character in the Los Verdes area in which original structures are all single-story houses. Currently, there are no two-story houses on the Rio Linda Drive, the Centuria Drive and the Monero Drive east of Granvia Altamira. Street views are very serene as shown in Figures 4.1-1, 4.1-2, and 4.1-3, except the Villa Rosa Drive as shown in Figure 4.1-4 and Figure 4.1-5. *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 7 of22 Attachments 1-328 Figure 4.2-1 is the view looking toward the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive where the two-story house is proposed. The center of the photo behind the foliage is the house. From this photo, it is easy to imagine how overwhelming the two-story house would be for the neighboring structures, especially for the neighbors who are located at the lower elevation lots in front. The garage visible at the left side of the photo belongs to 6329 Villa Rosa Drive. This house would be sandwiched between two-story houses. Figure 4.2-2 is looking at the house at 6329 Villa Rosa, and the proposed two-story house would be at the center of the photo above this house. Figure 4.2.-1 Looking toward 6321 Villa Rosa *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 8 of22 Attachments 1-329 Figure 4.2-2 Looking at 6329 Villa Rosa, seeing 6321 above the garage Figure 4.2-3 below shows the current curb appeal of the house at 6320 Rio Linda Drive, which is abutting the proposed two-story house. Figure 4.2-3, Front curb view of house at 6320 Rio Linda Dr. Currently there is no visible house behind at 6320 Rio Linda Drive. However, if the proposed two-story house were built, the proposed second floor would be replacing the trees currently seen behind the house and the front curb view might become similar to Figure 4.1-6, even ifthe square footage of the proposed two- story might be less than the house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive. The curb appeal of *See the parcel map at the end for addresses . Page 9 of22 Attachments 1-330 the house at 6320 Rio Linda Drive would be degraded significantly, and the desirability of the property is ruined and the property value would go down. The view from the house at 6328 Rio Linda Drive would be worse, since it is abutting the two-story house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive at one comer as shown in Figure 4.2-4 and is abutting the proposed two story house at the other comer. / .,,. ~-, ~~· Figure 4.2-4 Seeing 6343 Villa Rosa Dr from 6328 Rio Linda Drive. The proposed two-story house would be higher than the house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive, since the lot at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive is elevated approximately 6 feet *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 10 of22 Attachments 1-331 above the lot at 6328 Rio Linda Drive. The house at 6328 Rio Linda Drive would be like being pinched between two tall structures. Currently, there is no house visible behind the house a 6328 Rio Linda if viewed toward the proposed house as shown in Figure 4.2-5. However, the proposed two-story house would be visible where the tall tree is . The tree would be cut down to improve the view from the proposed two-story house. Figure 4.2-5 Looking toward 6321 Villa Rosa from 6328 Rio Linda Anyone coming into the Rio Linda Drive and the Villa Rosa Drive must drive up the Centuria Drive as shown in Figure 4.1-2, since these two streets are the no-exit (dead-end) streets. As driving up the Centuria Drive, the house seen at the end is 6320 Rio Linda Drive. The proposed two-story house would be seen behind the house at 6320 Rio Linda Drive. The proposed two story house would degrade the street landscape of the Centuria Drive. 1 11t1 F' 4 1 2 C . 1gure . -entuna *See the parcel map at the end for addresses . Page 11of22 Attachments 1-332 No matter how pretty the proposed two-story house may look, the sheer bulk and mass of the two-story house would overwhelm the neighboring structures. The impact would be worse on the Rio Linda Drive side than on the Villa Rosa Drive side as proven by Figure 4.1-6. It is often said that the bigger house on the block would improve the property values of neighboring houses. Unfortunately this is not always true. The proposed remodeling is not proportional to adjoining properties and does not enhance the rhyme of the street landscape. The proposed remodeling is based on the self-centered point of view without due considerations for the neighborhood. The earlier mistake at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive should not be repeated again. 4.3 Detailed Discussions on Infringement of the privacy of occupants of abutting residences The proposed remodeling at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive is to convert the existing single-story house into a two-story house. Also, the plan is to relocate the living quarters on to the new second floor. The intention is to gain the some ocean-view from the new living quarters on the new second floor. The new ocean view from said house would cover the view angle of the quarter circle roughly from north to west looking over the house at 6320 Rio Linda Drive, 6328 Rio Linda Drive and 6334 Rio Linda Drive. Therefore, windows, sliding doors and/or balconies will be installed at the back side of the remodeled house. Installing the windows, sliding doors and/or balconies at the back side of the second floor is the key for gaining the ocean-view in this proposal (or any modification in the future). Without these windows, sliding doors, and/or balconies, the primary objective (of gaining the view) cannot be achieved. However, installation of windows, sliding doors and/or balconies will totally infringe the privacy of the occupants of the abutting residences especially at 6320 Rio Linda Drive and 6328 Rio Linda Drive. The infringement of the privacy is very severe, because, in these abutting houses, living quarters are located at the rear of the houses. The privacy will be infringed in the backyard, the enclosed patio, the living room, the dining room, the master bedroom the bathroom. Figure 4.3-1 is the current view from the backyard of the house at 6320 Rio Linda Drive looking toward the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 12of22 Attachments 1-333 Figure 4.3-1 Looking toward 6321 Villa Rosa from 6320 Rio Linda backyard Currently, only the roof section of the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive is visible, providing the total privacy. If the proposed two-story were built, the height of the second floor would be higher than the palm tree seen in the background. The entire windows, sliding doors, and/or balconies on the second floor of the proposed two-story house would be visible from any place in the backyard of the house at 6320 Rio Linda Drive. Thus, the privacy in the backyard of the residence at 6320 Rio Linda Drive will be totally infringed. Figure 4.3-2 is the current view from the enclosed patio at 6320 Rio Linda Drive looking toward the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 13 of22 Attachments 1-334 Figure 4.3-2 View from the enclosed patio at 6320 Rio Linda Dr. looking toward 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Again, all windows, sliding doors, and/or balconies on the second floor would be visible from here. The proposed second floor at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive would totally infringe the privacy in the enclosed patio at 6320 Rio Linda Drive. The similar thing can be said about the privacy in the dining room, the living room, the master bedroom and the bathroom located at the rear of the house at 6320 Rio Linda Drive. Photos shown in Figures 4.1-4 and 4.1-5 should be looked at carefully in order to assess what negative impact on privacy would be on the house at 6320 Rio Linda Drive and 6328 Rio Linda Drive if the proposed two-story house were built. Please note that tress and foliage cannot be planted to improve the privacy since doing so would interfere with the viewing area from the proposed second floor. The viewing area from 6321 Villa Rosa Drive would be protected by city regulations through the process of the "View Restoration Permit". The infringement of the privacy would be worse at 6328 Rio Linda Drive, because the lot at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive is elevated approximately 6 feet above the lot at 6328 Rio Linda Drive. Figure 4.3-3 is the view from the backyard of 6328 Rio Linda Drive toward 6343 Villa Rosa Drive. Figure 4.3-4 is another view of 6343 Villa Rosa Drive from another angle in the backyard of 6328 Rio Linda Drive. The effort has been made to hide the huge silhouette of 6343 Villa Rosa Drive using foliage . *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 14of22 Attachments 1-335 Figure 4.3-3, View from the backyard of 6328 Rio Linda Drive toward 6343 Villa Rosa Drive. Figure 4.3-4, Another view of 6343 Villa Rosa Dr from 6328 Rio Linda Dr. Hiding of the silhouette of 6343 Villa Rosa with foliage or trees is possible only because the occupants at 6343 Villa Rosa are not interested in looking toward this direction. On the other hand, the occupants of the proposed remodeled house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive are interested in looking out toward 6328 Rio Linda Drive to gain the ocean view. *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 15 of22 Attachments 1-336 Figure 4.3-5 is the current view looking toward 6321 Villa Rosa Drive from the backyard of 6328 Rio Linda Dr. Figure 4.3-5, Looking toward 6321 Villa Rosa Dr from 6328 Rio Linda Dr Currently, the house at 6321 Villa Rosa is not visible hidden behind the foliage and fences . However, the proposed two-story house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive would be at the center of the photo towering over the fence beyond the foliage. If the proposed two-story house were built, the occupants would be requesting to cut down trees and foliage in this backyard to improve the view. Once the living quarters are located on the new second floor, regardless of whether the relocation is the result of obtaining the permit for the height variations, the new viewing area from the living quarters will be protected in the future by city regulations through the process of the "View Restoration Permit". Cutting of trees and foliage in this backyard would expose the backyard and the house at 6328 Rio Linda Drive to the viewers in the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. The privacy of the occupants of the abutting residence at 6328 Rio Linda Drive would be totally infringed in the backyard, the patio, the living room, the master bedroom and the bathroom. The privacy of the occupants of the abutting residence at 6329 Villa Rosa Drive would be infringed in the backyard and the enclosed patio. 4.4 Detailed discussions on Additional Burdens to Neighbors *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 16 of22 Attachments 1-337 Once the Pandora's Box is opened by allowing building the second floor and locating the new living quarters on the new second floor, it will create a new sequence of unpleasant events for neighbors. The occupants of the proposed two- story house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive would like to improve their newly established view from the newly created living quarters. They would be requesting to cut down trees and foliage that are getting in the way of their view (from the new living quarters). This is possible because they are entitled to do so through the process of the "View Restoration Permit". This is another set of problems that the neighbors have to deal with. Many residents living in the line of sight of the new viewing area of 6321 Villa Rosa Drive will be subject to obtaining an approval/concurrence from the occupant at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive when neighbors are attempting to remodel their houses. Neighbors will no longer be able to remodel houses or plant trees easily. Neighbors located as far as 300 feet away, such as 6329 Rio Linda Drive, 6337 Rio Linda Drive, 6343 Rio Linda Drive, 6403 Rio Linda Drive, and 6334 Rio Linda Drive, may be affected by this. A single-minded pursuit of gaining an ocean view at the expense of disturbing compatibility of the neighborhood, breaking up the rhyme of the street landscape, and/or infringing the privacy of neighbors should be restrained. 4.5 Recommendations for Modifying the Proposed Plan Since the current proposed plan to build the two-story house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive does not meet the guidelines set forth in the Height Variation Guidelines and the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, we would like to strongly request that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would deny the application for building the two-story structure as currently proposed. We would like to recommend the following modifications to the proposed plan. 1) Modify to the single-story design The problems with the current proposed remodeling come from the bulky and massive two-story house. The appearance of the proposed structure is too visible from the streets and abutting residences. It does not fit well with the characters of the neighborhood, and it destroys the rhyme of the street landscape. The two-story house would severely infringe the privacy of neighbors. The plan should be modified to the single-story design. The modified plan should make the maximum use of the lot within what allowed under the city codes, ordinances and regulations in order to gain as mush square footage as possible. Expanding the house using the single-story design will not create the bulky appearance since the majority of the house will be hidden toward the rear of *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 17 of22 Attachments 1-338 the house. Therefore, negative impacts as described above for the current proposed two-story design would be eliminated. There are many good examples on the Monero Drive in which the additional living space is added using the single-story design. One example is the house at 6313 Monero Drive as shown in Figure 4.5-1 below, whose appearance is compatible with the neighborhood and enhances the rhyme of the street landscape. Figure 4.5-1, Remodeled house at 6313 Morrero Drive, a single story design A two-story design of any kind should not be permitted. Once a two-story house were built at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive even if initially without windows, sliding doors or balconies at the back side, nothing would prevent the owner from adding windows and balconies at the back side in the future without getting the city permits as long as the size of the balcony is less than 80 square footage and not protruding more than 6 feet. The temptation and incentive are always there for the owner to install windows and balconies on the second floor in the future, since doing so will gain the new ocean view (at the expense of the privacy of occupants in abutting residences). Once a two-story house were built, occupants of the abutting residences would not have any recourse of preventing the owner at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive from installing windows, sliding doors and/or balconies at the back side in the future. 5.0 References *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 18 of22 Attachments 1-339 5.1 With respect to compatibility requirements 5 .1.1 Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook of RPV Section: Design Tips Section Subsection II: Architectural Style and Materials Paragraph B: Height of Structures Subparagraph 1: (Page 21) "The height of a structure should be compatible with the established building heights in the neighborhood." Section: Design Tips Section Subsection II: Architectural Style and Materials Paragraph F: Apparent Bulk and Mass Subparagraph 1: (Page 25) "The bulk and mass of a new residence or an addition to an existing residence should be similar to neighboring structures, not overwhelming or disproportionate in size. A design that is out of character with the neighborhood is strongly discouraged." 5.1.2 Height Variation Guidelines of RPV Section IX: MANDATORY FINDINGS Paragraph 8: (Page 15) "The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character." "Neighborhood character" is defined to consider the existing characteristics of an area, including: (a) Scale of 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 structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials. 5.2 With respect to privacy requirements 5.2.1 Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook of RPV Section: Design Tips Section Subsection II: Architectural Style and Materials Paragraph A: Fa9ade Treatments Subparagraph 7: (Page 20) "The placement of windows on a second story should not compromise the privacy of a neighbor." Section: Design Tips Section *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 19of22 Attachments 1-340 Subsection II: Architectural Style and Materials Paragraph B: Height of Structures Subparagraph 7: (Page 22) "The height of a structure should not result in a significant loss or infringement of privacy on a neighboring property." 5.2.2 Height Variation Guidelines ofRPV Section IX: MANDATORY FINDINGS Paragraph 9: (Page 15) ""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." "Privacy is defined as the reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation." 5.3 With respect to requiring an analysis of neighborhood compatibility 5.3.1 Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook ofRPV Page 3: When Does It Apply? Pursuant to Section 17 .02.030(B) of the RPVMC, an analysis of Neighborhood Compatibility shall be required for the following residential development projects: 5. The construction of, or an addition to, a new second story or higher story; pursuant to Chapter 17.02 of the Development Code; 7 . The construction of, or an addition of a deck, balcony or roof deck to a second story or higher story ifthe total area of the deck, balcony, or roof deck is eighty (80) square feet or larger or projects more than six (6) feet from the existing building; and, (Conversely, this means that if the total area of the deck, balcony, or roof deck is eighty (80) square feet or less or projects less than six (6) feet from the existing building, then an analysis of Neighborhood Compatibility will not be required.) 8. An addition of a mezzanine to an existing structure that modifies the exterior of the structure other than the placement of flush mounted doors and windows. 5.4 With respect to "viewing area" that can be protected by the "View Restoration Permit" process. *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 20 of22 Attachments 1-341 5.4 1 Height Variation Guidelines of RPV III. ESTABLISHING THE VIEWING AREA (Page 2 of the Guidelines) B. The "viewing area" of the applicant's property is where the best and most important view is taken. The determination of the "viewing area", is made "by balancing the nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from where the view is taken". 4. The "viewing area" may only be located on a second (or higher) story of a structure if: b. The viewing area is located in a part of the structure that constitutes the primary living area of the house, which is the living room, dining room, family room, or kitchen. However, the viewing area may be located in the master bedroom, if a view is not taken from one of the rooms comprising the primary living area, and the master bedroom is located on the same story of the house as the primary living area. (This means that once the living quarters are located on the new second floor, regardless of whether the relocation is the result of obtaining the permit for the height variations, the viewing area from the living quarters will be protected in the future by city regulations under the "View Restoration Permit" process. It seems that many residents living in the line of sight of the new viewing area will be subject to obtaining the approvaUconcurrence from the person (in this case the residents of 6321 Villa Rosa Drive) when neighbors are attempting to remodel their houses. The person at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive could request to cut down trees and foliage that are interfering with his viewing area. Basically anyone who lives in the quarter circle viewing area, approximately from north to west of the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, could be affected.) 5.5 Parcel Map *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 21 of22 Attachments 1-342 P1 A~ Si P1 Re Tc ~ ;r .. :""' ;,:: R Le In ---J9f: 2 ... *See the parcel map at the end for addresses. Page 22 of22 Attachments 1-343 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Ms. Leza Mikhail, Akemichi Yamada <akemichi@verizon.net> Monday, April 28, 2014 6:51 AM Leza Mikhail Case # ZON2014-00064, Comment on 6321 Villa Rosa Remodeling Impact on 6320 Rio Linda from 6321 Villa Rosa_l.doc I dropped off the hard copy of my comment at your office on April 21. I thought you may need the soft copy, so I am enclosing it in this e-mail. Please share this document with anyone who may be interested, including Sam Hassan . By the way, the proposed house is very beautiful. If it located at an appropriate site, it will be a fine addition to a neighborhood. Unfortunately, the small lot at 6321 Villa Rosa is not appropriate to accommodate this beautiful but huge structure. Sincerely, Akemichi Yamada 6320 Rio Linda Drive, 310-544-4525 1 Attachments 1-344 RECEIVED APR 21 2014 To: Ms. Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT From: Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada, 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-544-4525, akemichi@verizon.net Reference: RPV Planning Division Case No. ZON2014-00064 Subject: Impact on 6320 Rio Linda Drive from the proposed remodeling at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive Date: April 21, 2014 Dear Ms. Mikhail, The proposed 2-story remodeling at 6321 Villa Rosa Dive, which is abutting our property at 6320 Rio Linda Drive, has very significant impacts on us as described below. We would like to have the City to disapprove the plan, and to have the remodeling changed to the single-story design. (1) Infringement of Our Privacy. The intent of the 2-story design is to gain the ocean view looking over our property. Please note that the angle of the ocean view is roughly the 90° sector from North to West, looking over the properties at 6320 Rio Linda Drive, 6328 Rio Linda Driver, and 6334 Rio Linda Drive toward the Malibu coast. Two balconies with sliding doors will be located at the back of the proposed second story for providing the ocean view. Unfortunately our lot is located at the same elevation as the lot of the proposed remodeling. Because of this topological factor, the invasion of the privacy is very severe. The photos of the back of the proposed remodeling, viewed from our backyard, enclosed patio, master bedroom, master bathroom, and dining room are shown in Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Please note that our living quarters (the dining room, living room, enclosed patio, master bed room, and master bathroom) are located at the backside. The massive proposed structure is visible from anywhere at the backside of our house. Because the back of the proposed second story is very close to the property borderline, anyone looking out of a window or balcony of the proposed second floor toward the ocean will have a full view of the entire back side of our property. We may hear any conversation going on in their balconies or bedrooms. Conversely, we can see people in their bed rooms through their sliding doors. Thus the proposed 2-story remodeling will severely infringe our privacy in our back yard, enclosed patio, dining room, master bedroom and master bathroom. We are retired, and are spending tremendous amount of time in our enclosed patio and back yard because of illness we have suffered recently. Because of the advanced age, it is very critical for us to be able to enjoy the privacy in the living quarters. Page 1 of6 Attachments 1-345 (2) No effective means to mitigate the infringement of the privacy (2-a) Any attempt to ease the privacy issue by providing trees or foliage between our property and the proposed 2°d story will not work. Any trees and foliage are too porous and leaves may fall depending on seasons, and thus they are not reliable means to provide adequate privacy. Any tall trees planted along the borderline would create another problem of blocking ocean views from other neighbors located on the east side (upslope). Therefore, planting trees is not appropriate solution. (2-b) Any restrictions on the proposed remodeling, such as not installing the balconies and windows on the rear-side, will not be adhered very long because the temptation of gaining the ocean view is too strong. If the ownership changes in the future, the new owner may not be aware of the restrictions, and will violate restrictions by installing the windows or balconies. Any modifications such as installing windows or changing translucent glass to clear glass can be done by handymen without notifying the City. It is our understanding that the owner can add windows and balconies at the back side in the future without getting the city permits as long as the size of the balcony is less than 80 square footage and not protruding more than 6 feet. The problem is what we can do if any restrictions (codes) are violated. Enforcement of codes is very difficult issue. We see very often code violations left uncorrected. Citations are left ignored. Unless there is a strong and sure mechanism of enforcing the code violations, it is very difficult for us to accept the 2-story design. (3) Excessive bulk and mass The size of the proposed two-story remodeling is too massive for the neighborhood, and is disturbing the rhyme of the street landscape. Villa Rosa is a curvy narrow street (28ft from curb to curb) and is sloped up and down. The proposed bulk is further amplified by the topology of the street. The proposed bulk stands like a huge canyon wall as shown in Figure 6. Please note that many 2-story houses in the Los Verdes area west of Granvia Altamira are located mostly on the flat streets where 2-story houses are not visually invasive. The side-view and rear-view of the proposed 2-story are too overwhelming if viewed from adjoining or abutting residences, especially from our property. Please note that lot sizes are very small (7,000 ft2) around here. The huge 2-story house built so close to our border would be visually invasive as shown in Figure 1. Ocean views of some residents living at east of the proposed remodeling may be affected. The proposed structure is a beautiful one, but it is not appropriate for this particular lot. If it is located at another site such as on Ella Road, it would be a fine addition to the neighborhood. Page 2of6 Attachments 1-346 (4) Degrade our curb appeal The proposed 2"d sto~ will degrade the curb appeal of our house because the silhouette of the proposed 2" story is visible from the street (see Figure 7 below.) I Figure 1, Looking at the remodeling from our back yard at 6320 Rio Linda Drive Page 3of6 Attachments 1-347 Figure 2, Looking at the remodeling from our enclosed patio Figure 3, Looking at the remodeling from our master bedroom (the proposed remodeling is too huge to capture its entirety in one shot) Page 4of6 Attachments 1-348 Figure 4, Looking from our master bathroom Figure 5, Looking from our dining room through the enclosed patio Page 5of6 Attachments 1-349 Figure 6, Looking at the proposed remodeling on Villa Rosa Dr. '"\ • a Figure 7, Curb view of our house (the proposed 2nd story is visible over our roof.) Page 6of6 Attachments 1-350 January 28, 2014 Dear Ms. Abigail Harwell, I am enclosing a copy of the letter I am sending to Mr. Sam Hassan regarding my comments on the proposed remodeling at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, which requires an approval on the height variations. The reason why I am sending this to you now is that I don't know when I may be hospitalized and unable to attend the hearing at the Planning Commission, if there is any. I don't want to leave the matter to my wife and burden her with this issue in case I am hospitalized. Would you file this somewhere just in case Mr. Sam Hassan submits his request for the Height Variations? I am going to work with Mr. Sam Hassan as much as possible for finding the solution. But this is my current position. Sincerely, //. ;;t/l.,~ Akem i¥ Yamada RECEIVED I JAN 29 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attachments 1-351 To: Mr. Sam Hassan 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Akemichi Yamada 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: My comments on your proposed remodeling plan at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Date: January 28, 2014 CC.: Ms. Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA First, I would like to welcome you to the neighborhood. It was nice meeting you on January 25 when you brought and showed me your proposed remodeling plan. Even though, it was a cursory look at the plan, I am providing you my comments on the proposed plan. Please provide me a copy of your proposed plan so I can review it in detail. Then, I will provide you with more comments or will modify comments made on this letter. Since, you don't live yet at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive and I don't know your current address or phone number, I am leaving this letter in the mail box at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. I am hoping that you will see this letter very soon. Also, I will be sending this letter to "In care of Ms. Mo loud Elisha, Century 21 Beverlywood Realty". There are unfortunately a few issues that are negatively affecting us who are living right behind the said property. As you know, we are living in the house located right behind at 6320 Rio Linda Drive for the last 20 years. Let me list the issues related to your remodeling plan as I see at this moment: 1) I understand your desire to increase the total square footage of the house. Everyone has the same desire. One option is to buy the house that already has the desired square footage. But you decided to buy the small house and remodel it, even though this approach seems to cost more. Your plan is not to simply increase square footage based on the single-story house. After looking at your plan, it seems obvious why you have taken this approach. You are making a single-story house into a two-story house. Then you are locating the living quarters (the living room, the dining room and the master bedroom) on the new second floor. Doing so, you are gaining the new viewing area looking over my house (and my next door neighbor's house) toward the ocean. You are trying to gain the far ocean-view from your new living quarters on the new second floor. Unfortunately, your remodeling plan will invade our privacy because you will be looking out from your new living quarters toward the back of our house. You will be Page 1of3 Attachments 1-352 seeing our back yard, our sun-room, the living room and the bed room. You will be invading our privacy in the living quarters by looking toward the back of our house from your new living quarters. This is not acceptable to us. This neighborhood (the Los Verdes area) was initially built in 1962 giving considerations to maintaining privacy of residents and providing some ocean views if possible. Houses are modest in size, typically single-story, but they are relatively compatible to each other. It is a cozy neighborhood and it is not meant for houses with impressive size. Building of a two-story house will totally invade our privacy, and will go against the spirit of the initial Los Verdes development. We are retired now, and are spending more time at home in our back yard and the living quarters. As our health deteriorates, it is certain that we will be spending more time (or the majority of time) in the back yard and in the living quarters. Our house is a single-story house convenient for people in a wheel-chair. I am hoping to continuously live quietly and peacefully in this fine cozy neighborhood. 2) Once the Pandora's Box is opened by allowing building the second floor and locating the new living quarters on the new second floor, it will create a new sequence of unpleasant events for us. You probably would like to improve your newly established view from your newly created living quarters. You would be requesting to cut down trees and foliage that are getting in the way of your view (from the new living quarters). This is possible because you are entitled to do so through the View Restoration Permit. This is another set of problems I have to deal with. 3) There is another issue related to seeing the roof of your new two-story house above our house if looked from the street level in front of our house. This will be very unpleasant, and will degrade the curve appeal of our house. This problem is in addition to seeing the higher structure of your would-be remodeled house from our back yard, the sun-room and the living room. The appearance (silhouette) of your new remodeled house would degrade our property value, no matter how fancy your new house may look. 4) You are your architect are totally familiar with the city codes, guidelines, ordinances, regulations, etc. You know that once the living quarters are located on the new second floor, regardless of whether the relocation is the result of obtaining the permit for the height variations, your viewing area from the living quarters will be protected in the future by city regulations. Many residents living in the line of sight of your new viewing area will be subject to obtaining your approval/concurrence from you when they are attempting to remodel their houses. This will create another set of issues that many residents have to deal with in the future. Neighbors will no longer be able to remodel houses easily. 5) Some houses on Villa Rosa Drive have additions that are above their garages. However, these houses are located on the south side of the street (the opposite side of your house) where the Hawthorne Boulevard is located at their backs. Therefore, there is no privacy issue like your house and mine. However, in my opinion, these additions do not look good destroying the cohesive look of the street. There is one remodeled two- Page 2of3 Attachments 1-353 story house located on your side of the street. It is at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive. There was a strong opposition for remodeling the original single-story house into a two-story house at 6343 Villa Rose Drive mainly on the privacy issue (and concerns for degrading property values of adjacent properties). (The approval happened a year before I moved into the neighborhood. I heard about it from the previous owner of 6328 Rio Linda Drive.) The house was remodeled by not having any windows facing the property at 6328 Rio Linda Drive. However, there are negative impacts to adjacent houses from the silhouette of the remodeled house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive. The two-story house is imposing, and destroyed the compatible look of the neighborhood as seen from the Rio Linda Drive. Even if a house may look impressive from the front, but it often looks terrible from the back. The remodeled house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive should be the lesson-learned for approving/not-approving the Height Variations in this neighborhood in the future. The majority of windows of the house at 6343 Villa Rosa are facing toward the street side (Villa Rosa) because their ocean view is toward the street side. You would not have many issues if you were remodeling the house on the south side of Villa Rosa Drive. 6) The primary goal of your remodeling is to obtain the new viewing area overlooking above our house (and my next door). Unfortunately, your primary goal comes into a serious conflict with my desire for maintaining the privacy in my living quarters and the back yard. I just don't know how to compromise. I just wish that you had never thought of such remodeling. It seems that you will gain everything and neighbors will lose everything according to the current proposed plan. I just wish that you would expand the square footage based on the single story house, but maximally using the lot. It is not my intention to offend you, but this is to convey you my feeling on your remodeling plan. I am sending this letter as early as possible so that you would review my comments and would make adjustment to your plan. Sincerely, d r /~Y~- Ak:emichitf'amada Page 3of3 Attachments 1-354 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: dellandsteve@cox.net Monday, May 19, 2014 7:53 AM Leza Mikhail Case No. ZON2014-00064 (6321 Villa Rosa) My wife and I who reside at 6334 Rio Linda, are opposed to the City Planning Department granting a Height Variation and Building Permit for the proposed construction on the property at 6321 Villa Rosa. The construction of a second story on this single family residence is not in the best interest of the neighborhood as will disrupt the overall conformity of this 50+ year old neighborhood, will block the view of some homes and impose on the privacy of several homes. Our home is adjacent to a two story monstrosity which impacts the value of our home and has greatly reduced the privacy of our backyard. Please do not approve the request for the variances requested by the owners of the home at 6321 Villa Rosa. Sincerely, Steve and Dell Nash 6334 Rio Linda Drive 1 Attachments 1-355 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Ms. Mikhail; Donald Brogdon <donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com> Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:56 AM Leza Mikhail The house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive mansionization.docx Enclosed, please find some additional thoughts and concerns Betty and I have regarding the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes. Thank you for taking the time to review our additional thoughts and concerns, Donald and Betty Brogdon donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com Cell Phone: (323) 404-2594, Home Phone: (310) 377-5783 1 Attachments 1-356 Monday,. May 12, 2014 Ms. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner, Planning Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd ., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Ms. Mikhail; When Betty and I purchased our home in 2002, located at 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275, we looked for about three years before we found and purchased this 1450 sq. ft. home that fit our family. Not a 1450 sq ft home to fit seven (7) people. Why not purchase a home that better fits your needs. Homes in Rancho Palos Verdes are already available that fit a family of seven . Villa Rosa Drive is not a wide street; will our neighborhood be able to fit additional cars for the proposed house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive? Is the new owner really who he says he is? Is this a scam or fraud? Is he just buying this home to make a quick flip? If this massive 4000 sq.-ft. two-story structure on the 7,000 sq-ft lot is approved, our neighborhood is left with 'mansionization' and this person leaves us all behind to live with all his changes permanently. Below are Specific reasons why we oppose the proposed remodeling: Photo 1 Figure 1 4,500 4,000 £ 3 ,000 .... STRUCTCTURE SIZE COM PARJSON LL 2,500 t-------- cT "! 2,000 .. N iii 1,500 1,000 500 0 Average Proposed (1) per LA Country Assessor records, Villa Rosa, Rio Linda, Centuria, Monera and Alvarez Drives. In the "Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook" (NCH) and the "Guidelines and Procedures for Height Variation Permits" (PHV), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes sets key guidelines. Some of these guidelines are listed below and the reasons we feel the remodel does not adhere to those principles. 1) The height of a structure should be compatible with established building heights in the neighborhood (NCH page 21, B.1). The original housing development of this neighborhood was comprised of single story Ranch homes and remains predominately so today. The proposed two-story structure is completely incompatible with these homes. 2) The bulk and mass of the new residence or an addition to an existing residence should be similar to neighboring structures, not overwhelming or d isproportionate in size. A design that is out of character with the neighborhood is strongly discouraged (NCH page 28). Attachments 1-357 r :.~ proposed 4,000 sq. ft. neighborhood, see Figure 1. ·cture is over double what the aver; home size {1,820 sq. ft.) is for this 3) The proposed structure should be compatible with immediate neighborhood character. "Neighborhood character" is defined to consider the existing characteristics of an area, including: (a) Scale of 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 structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials (PHV page 15). The proposed structure is architecturally unlike existing homes in the neighborhood. 4) The structure should enhance the rhyme of the streetscape (NCH page 27). The topology of Villa Rosa Drive amplifies the bulk of the proposed structure, and it stands like a huge canyon wall dwarfing existing homes on either side, as shown in Photo 1. 5) The height of a structure that is above 16 feet in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences (PHV page 15). Proposed windows and balconies on the second floor could allow a direct view into living quarters of neighboring residences. 6) The height of a structure should be carefully designed to respect views from the viewing area of neighboring properties (NCH page 21 B.5, PHV page 13). The proposed second story blocks ocean views from other neighbors located on the east side (the upslope side). Betty and I have Additional concerns. If this proposal is accepted, it would set a precedent for the future course of the development in this neighborhood. An approval process of a future two-story structure may rely on this variance acceptance. Two-story structures may propagate through the area in a manner that is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood. This neighborhood was initially built in 1962 giving considerations to maintaining the privacy of residents, providing ocean views and preserving the open space necessary for a neighborhood not to appear overbuilt (creeping mansionization). See the front page article in the LA times May 5, 2014, "Return of 'mansionization' ... ". It's about home builders building homes too large for their lots and neighborhoods. Some LA city council members called them "homes on steroids". Finally, the houses in the neighborhood are relatively compatible to each other. They are located on the sloping terrain, but adjacent houses are cleverly arranged so that the houses at the higher-elevation lots would not invade the privacy of the houses at the lower-elevation lots . The delicate balancing between privacy and ocean-view may be upset forever if two- story structures are introduced in the neighborhood. Thank you for taking the time to review our additional concerns, Donald and Betty Brogdon donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com Cell Phone: (323) 404-2594, Home Phone: (310) 377-5783 Attachments 1-358 To: Mr. Sayed (Sam) Hassan 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Donald & Betty Brogdon, 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Steve Nash, 6334 Rio Linda Drive, Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada, 6320 Rio Linda Drive, Subject: Our suggestions for modifying your current proposed two-story remodeling plan into a single-story design at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Date: February 2, 2014 CC.: Ms. Abigail Harwell, Community Development Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Dear Mr. Sam Hassan, We feel that your current plan of converting the single-story house into a two- story house has many issues, and we would like to suggest some changes to the plan incorporating the single-story design. We feel that your current proposed remodeling based on the two-story design is not meeting the guidelines set forth in the Height Variance Guidelines and the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook. The proposed two-story house is that: 1) the bulk and mass of the two-story house is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood; 2) the two-story house does not enhance the rhyme of the street landscape; 3) the height and silhouette of the two-story house are overwhelming to the surrounding structures; and 4) the two-story house infringes the privacy of the occupants of the abutting residences. We would like to have you modify the current remodeling plan and incorporate the single-story design. You can expand the living space toward the front and toward the rear without being invasive. There are many good examples in this neighborhood that expanded the square footage of the living space using the single-story design. Examples are at 6313 Monero Drive and at 6263 Monero Drive, whose appearances are compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Regards, Donald & Betty Brogdon, Steve Nash Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada Attachments 1-359 To: Mr. Sayed (Sam) Hassan 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Donald & Betty Brogdon, 6328 Rio Linda Drive, Steve Nash, 6334 Rio Linda Drive, Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada, 6320 Rio Linda Drive, RECEIVED FEB. 04 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Subject: Compatibility analysis performed by three of us on your proposed remodeling plan Date: February 3 , 2014 CC.: Ms. Abigail Harwell, Community Development Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Dear Mr. Sam Hassan, We are providing the detailed comments on your proposed plan in the attached "Compatibility Analysis on Proposed Remodeling at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes". This document provides the reasons why we are objecting to the current proposal of the two-story design. We are requesting you to modify the plan to a single-story design. Please read the attached document. We would like to discuss the plan as soon as possible together with neighbors. By the way, we are still waiting for the copy of the plan so we can review it more carefully. Regards, Donald & Betty Brogdon, 6328 Rio Linda Drive Steve Nash, 6334 Rio Linda Drive Akemichi & Yoshiko Yamada, 6320 Rio Linda Drive Attachments 1-360 Compatibility Analysis on P_roposed Remodeling at 63321 Vi ... -Abii;?:;::ii' ~-farwell Page 1of2 Compatibility Analysis on Proposed Remodeling at 63321 Villa Rosa Dr. R.P.V. Donald Brogdon <donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com> Thu 2/6/2014 12:28 PM To:Abigail Harwell <AbigailH@rpv.com>; I attachment Compatibility Analysis on Proposed Remodeling at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr._Feb OS.doc; Dear Ms. Abigail Harwell; Enclosed, please find our Compatibility Analysis on the Proposed Remodeling at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. R.P.V., CA. My wife and I moved to Rancho Palos Verdes 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 back yard directly to the west (you will see in the attached report pictures of our back yard) 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 directlyt into our bedroom. We do not hear any noises from our other surrounding neighbors. This house was remodeled prior to our purchase our home. If the house located at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. is remodeled to a two sto1·y structure it will invade our privacy and tranquility from the South East. So now, we will have invasion from the West and South East. Our Home and backyard will be like living in a fishbowl. We do not want to face the potential loss of our beloved trees and bushes 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! Please respond that you have read and reviewed our concerns in our letters and report. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call @ (323) 404-2594. https :// owa.rpv. com/ owa/ 2/6/2014 Attachments 1-361 Compatibility Analysis on Proposed Remodeling at 63321 Vi. .. -Abi~ail l-Iarwell Page 2 of2 Thank you in advance for reviewing our letter and the attached Compatibility Analysis on Proposed Remodeling at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. R.P.V., CA. Sincerely, Donald and Betty Brogdon https://owa.rpv .com/owa/ 2/6/2014 Attachments 1-362 ~PV Pla ;lning Division Case: No. ZON:?" ,-00064 RECEIVED Subject: Impact on 6328 Rio Linda Drive from the proposed remodeling at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive APR 2 2 2014 Submitted by: Donald and Betty Brogdon 6328 Rio Linda Drive, RPV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Home number: 310-377-5783, Cell number: 323-404-2594, email: donaldbrogdon@yabael<llDTMENT Date: April 22, 2014 Dear Ms . Mikhail; I realize the pictures on our report are long but it is the best way for my wife Betty and me to tell our story. This is our one and only chance to save our home. We purchased our because of our backyard and the peace and tranquility we enjoy on a daily basis. Please keep the proposed remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive to only one story. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review our report and considering our situation. Your assistance and considerations are greatly appreciated. Donald and Betty Brogdon The proposed 2-story remodeling at 6321 Villa Rosa Dive, which is abutting our property at 6328 Rio Linda Drive, has many negative impacts on us as described below. (1) The size of the proposed remodeling is too massive for the neighborhood, and is disturbing the rhyme of the street landscape. Its side-view and rear-view are too overwhelming if viewed from adjoining or abutting residences. The bulk and mass of the proposed remodeling is not appropriate for the neighborhood whose character is delicately balanced on the sloping terrain. (2) The proposed remodeling will completely infringe our privacy in our backyard; dining room, master bedroom and master bathroom that are located at the rear of our house (see pages 2, & 3 below.) We are retired, and are spending tremendous amounts of time in our back yard because of the peace and tranquility we enjoy. Because we are retired, it Is very critical for us to be able to enjoy the privacy In our living quarters. (3) The intent of the 2-story design is to gain the ocean view looking over our property. Viewers from the windows of the proposed znd story will infringe our privacy permanently. The new residents of the proposed remodeling will most likely be requesting to cut down trees on our property and our next door neighbor at 6320 Rio Linda Drive, which will deprive us of the needed shade trees and the breezes they afford us . (4) Any attempt to ease the privacy issue by providing trees or foliage between our property and the proposed 2nd story will not work. The trees cannot be high enough to provide adequate privacy because the high trees will interfere with the ocean view from the proposed 2nd story. Any trees and foliage are too porous and leaves may fall depending on seasons, and thus they are not a reliable means to provide adequate privacy. (5) Any restrictions on the proposed remodeling such as not installing the windows on the rear-side will not be adhered to very long because the temptation of gaining the ocean view is too strong. Any modifications such as installing windows can be done by handymen without notifying the City. If the ownership changes in the future, the new owner may not be aware of the restrictions, and will surely install the windows. We strongly ask the City not to authorize any 2-story design. (6) The proposed 2"d story will degrade the curb appeal and value of our home because the silhouette of the proposed 2nd story is visible from the street (see photo below.) Attachments 1-363 Above is the current view looking toward 6321 Villa Rosa Drive from the backyard of 6328 Rio Linda Drive. Currently, the single story house at 6321 Villa Rosa is not visible but partially hidden behind the foliage and fences. However, the proposed two-story house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive would be at the center of the photo towering over the fence beyond the foliage. If the proposed two-story house were built, the new occupants would be requesting my wife and me to cut down our trees and foliage in this backyard to improve their ocean view. Once the living quarters (and the master bedroom) are located on the new second floor, regardless of whether the relocation is the result of obtaining the permit for the height variations, the new viewing area from the living quarters (and the master bedroom) will be protected in the future by city regulations through the process of the "View Restoration Permit". Attachments 1-364 Cutting the trees and foliage i• ·,e backyard pictured above would exposr ,. backyard and our home, 6328 Rio Linda Drive to the viewers in the holJ"c at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. The privacy of our residence at 6328 Rio Linda Drive would be totally infringed in the backyard, the patio, the living room, the master bedroom and the bathroom permanently. This is our one and only chance to save our home. As we have stated previously, we purchased our home because of our back yard and the peace and tranquility we enjoy on a daily basis. Please keep the proposed remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive to one story only. Thank you for your considerations, D~~Mto -~ Attachments 1-365 Ptivacy nt Our Rio Linda Home From : Donald Brogdon <donaldbrogdon@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:27 PM To: Abigail Harwell Subject: Compatibility Analysis on Proposed Remodeling at 63321 Villa Rosa Dr. R.P.V. Dear Ms. Abigail Harwell; Enclosed, please find our Compatibility Analysis on the Proposed Remodeling at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. R.P.V., CA. My wife and I moved to Rancho Palos Verdes 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 back yard directly to the west (you will see in the attached report pictures of our back yard) 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 directlyt into our bedroom. We do not hear any noises from our other surrounding neighbors. This house was remodeled prior to our purchase our home. If the house located at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. is remodeled to a two story structure it will invade our privacy and tranquility from the South East. So now, we will have invasion from the West and South East. Our Home and backyard will be like living in a fishbowl. We do not want to face the potential loss of our beloved trees and bushes 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! Please respond that you have read and reviewed our concerns in our letters and report. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call@ (323) 404-2594. Thank you in advance for reviewing our letter and the attached Compatibility Analysis on Proposed Remodeling at 6321 Villa Rosa Dr. R.P.V., CA. Sincerely , v~~13e:tty 13v~ Donald and Betty Brogdon Attachments 1-366 Our backyard is calming and very private. However this will soon be violated. ) Above is the current view looking toward the flagged house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive from the backyard of the home at 6328 Rio Linda [)rive. Attachments 1-367 This remodel is looking right into our home. "No more privacy" Attachments 1-368 The remodel is out of character with our neighborhood. The 6' fence surrounding the property at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive gives them "complete privacy" from their neighbors. Attachments 1-369 The proposed two story remodel looks right into our backyard and the rear of our home. The two story remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive over shadows our property. "We lose all of our privacy permanently." The privacy of the occupants of the abutting residence at 6328 Rio Linda Drive would be totally infringed in the backyard, the patio, the living room, the master bedroom and the bathroom. We are already encumbered by the house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive. Now if the proposed two story structure at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive is built we will have obstruction to our home from both the North East and South directions. We will be living in a fish bowl. Our home will be gone and changed forever. Attachments 1-370 Attachments 1-371 Dear Ms. Mikhail, I realize the pictures in our report are long but it is the best way for my wife Betty and me to tell our story. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review our report and considering our situation. Your assistance and considerations are greatly appreciated, Donald and Betty Brogdon Pictures of 6328 Rio Linda Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Pg.1 Our home located at 6328 Rio Linda Drive, is a modest home and does not encumber our next door neighbor at 6334 Rio Linda We do not encumber any of our neighbors. Attachments 1-372 Pg. 2 --------~ ----- Our neighbor located at 6320 Rio Linda Drive does not encumber our home. Our backyard is calming and very private. However this will soon be violated. Attachments 1-373 Pg.3 From our backyard our neighbor at 6320 Rio Linda Drive does not encumber our privacy. Our neighbor located at 6320 Rio Linda Drive . Attachments 1-374 Pg.4 Our neighbor located at 6320 Rio Linda Drive. We do not have any issues with privacy. We do not have privacy from our neighbor located at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive . Attachments 1-375 Pg.5 We do not have privacy from our neighbor located at 6343 Villa Rosa Dr. Our neighbor at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive looks right into our bathroom . Attachments 1-376 Pg.6 Our neighbor at 6343 Villa Rosa Dr. looks right into our bathroom Our neighbor from 6343 Villa Rosa Drive looks into our bathroom if the window is open; right into our shower. Attachments 1-377 Pg. 7 Looking out our bathroom window, our neighbor's house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive looks right into our bathroom. This remodel is looking right into our home. "No more privacy" Attachments 1-378 Pg.8 Our trees will be cut down and we will lose our shade . Because of this two story remodel our trees will be cut down. Attachments 1-379 Pg.9 6' fence surrounding 6321 Villa Rosa Dr . The two story remodel will directly encumber our neighbor's home at 6320 Rio Linda Drive looking right into their backyard where they lose their privacy, "but the owners at 6321 Villa Rosa have total privacy" with their 6' fence. Attachments 1-380 Pg. 10 The owners at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive have installed a 6' fence around their property so "they have total privacy" . • Our fence compared to the owners 6' fence at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, which they have installed around their property to make sure "they have total privacy''. Attachments 1-381 Pg. 11 The 6' fence surrounding the property at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. ) ' The 6' fence surrounding the property at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive overshadows the fence around our properties. Attachments 1-382 Pg.12 The owners at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive have installed a 6' fence around their property so "they have total privacy". The proposed two story remodel looks right into our backyard and the rear of our home. We lose all of our privacy . Attachments 1-383 Pg. 13 The two story remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive over shadows our property. "We lose all of our privacy permanently." 1-•r - The 6' fence at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive overshadows our fence and those of our neighbors. Attachments 1-384 Pg. 14 Look how high the fence is next to the edge of the house at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive. "Total privacy." The remodel is out of character with our neighborhood. The 6' fence surrounding the property at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive gives them "complete privacy'' from their neighbors. Attachments 1-385 Pg. 15 The proposed remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive is too big for our neighborhood. The trees in our backyard give us much enjoyed beauty, shade, privacy and on hot days a nice breeze . Attachments 1-386 Pg. 16 This picture shows why we purchased our home. The trees allow us to enjoy the quiet solitude and privacy of our backyard. Attachments 1-387 Pg. 17 Our backyard is totally private . The proposed two story remodel will cause us to lose all of our privacy and we will lose all of our trees . Attachments 1-388 We prize our cherry and avocado trees. If the two story remodel is approved we will lose all of our cherished trees, privacy, solitude and our peace of mind. Attachments 1-389 Pg. 18 "If the two story remodel is approved we will lose all of our cherished trees, privacy and our peace of mind." We become wide open and exposed to the new neighbor at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive that cares only about themselves . Attachments 1-390 Pg. 19 If the proposed two story structure at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive is built we are totally open and exposed. No more privacy because, we will lose the backyard, our trees and home we fell in love with in 2002 and we will never get it back. We are already encumbered by the house at 6343 Villa Rosa Drive. Now if the proposed two story structure at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive is built we will have obstruction to our home from both the Northeast and Southern directions. We will be living in a fish bowl. Our home that we love will be changed and gone forever. Thank you, Donald and Betty Brogdon Attachments 1-391 Dear Ms Mikhail, Page 1of1 RECEIVED MAY 19 Z014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT the posts of the roofline of 6321 Villa Rosa can be clearly seen from Manero Drive. I have highlighted them in red. Thankyou. Julie Owens Rice 6300 Rio Linda Drive RPVCa. Monday, May 19, 2014 AOL: Rubyjulie44 Attachments 1-392 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: jimksact@aol.com Monday, May 19, 2014 10:41 AM Leza Mikhail Height Variance/6321 Villa Rosa, RPV, CA I would like to put in writing my concerns about the above application for a height variance . We are owners of the property at 27925 Alvarez Drive , RPV for more than 40 years. Our property has a view of the ocean from our living areas and as most of the odd numbers homes on Alvarez Drive , it sits on a ridge looking out at the ocean. Having a view home greatly increases the value of our property. The pictures taken by Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner, should show that the height of the proposed addition would conflict with the city's own codes against interference of views . If possible, I would like to speak at the meeting on May 27, asking for denial of the height variation permit. Thank you, Evelyn Kohler 27925 Alvarez Drive RPV,CA 1 Attachments 1-393 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Subject: Jack Ellis <jackel77@cox .net> Monday, May 19, 2014 10:49 AM Leza Mikhail Objection to remodel at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, RPV LEZA MIKHAIL, MPL CGBP Associate Planner, RPV Dear Ms. Leza Mikhail, My wife and I, longtime residents of RPV, living at 6358 Villa Rosa Dr., strenuously object to the proposed "mansionization" (remodel) of the property at 6321 Villa Rosa Drive, RPV, 90275, supposedly owned by someone named Sam Hassan. We only learned the supposed name of Sam Hassan from a Notice we received from the RPV Planning commission, dated April 21, 2014, regarding a public hearing concerning a "Height Variation 11 at the property site. We have received two letters, each purportedly from this Mr. Hassan, regarding this property, neither of which has he ... or anyone on his behalf ... bothered to sign, and both of which have only the typed name 11 SAM 11 on them. The heading on both documents read: PEACHTREE FAMILY TRUST at the Villa Rosa address. The information in that heading remains unexplained as to who owns the trust mentioned. This unusual conduct appears very suspicious to us. This property if remodeled according to the plan to remodel would seriously and overwhelmingly impact the quality of life, the privacy of neighboring properties, traffic in the neighborhood, the ocean views, and architecture of all but one of the existing properties on Vi Ila Rosa Drive. It is important that a precedent not be established for future purchases of property in this neighborhood. Both Elly and I request that this overly-huge and unnecessarily- encroaching height variation project be denied forthwith. JACK ELLIS ELLYN. ELLIS Property owners at 6358 Villa Rosa Dr, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 Attachments 1-394