RPVCCA_CC_SR_2011_08_16_02_Appeal_Of_PC_Denial_Height_Variation_And_Site_PlanPUBLIC HEARING
Date:August 16,2011
Subject:Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of a Height Variation and
Site Plan Review for a Proposed Second Story Addition to the
Existing Residence Located at 6530 La Garita (Case No.
ZON20 10-00331 )
Location:6530 La Garita
1.Declare the Hearing Open:Mayor Long
2.Report of Notice Given:City Clerk Morreale
3.Staff Report &Recommendation:Associate Planner Mikhail
4.Public Testimony:
Appellants:N/A
Applicants:David Moss representing
Isaac Magalnic
5.Council Questions:
6.Rebuttal:
7.Declare Hearing Closed:Mayor Long
8.Council Deliberation:
9.Council Action:
2-1
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY cou CIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELO
AUGUST 16,2011
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A HEIGHT
VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE
LO,CATED AT 6530 LA GARITA (CASE NO.ZON201 0-00331)
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER 0D.--
Project Manager:Leza Mikhail,Associate PlannetP
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the appeal,thereby overturning the Planning Commission's decision and
approving the requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review at 6530 La Garita
(Case No.ZON2010-00331)with additional Staff recommended conditions of approval
to mitigate privacy impacts and direct Staff to bring back the appropriate Resolution at
the subsequent City Council meeting for adoption.
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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Appellant at 6530 La Garita Drive is proposing to construct a 131 square foot first
floor addition and a 1,250 square foot second-floor addition to the existing 1,807 square
foot single-story residence.Despite multiple revisions,the second-story addition was
denied by the Planning Commission based on view impairment to the neighbor at 6517
2-2
Certa Drive,neighborhood compatibility issues related to bulk and mass and an
unreasonable infringement of privacy to the abutting neighbors.The Appellants'
subsequently appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council stating
that the Planning Commission did not consider the design modifications presented by
the property owner and,instead,agreed with inaccurate information provided by the
neighbors.With the inclusion of additional conditions of approval to further mitigate
privacy concerns,Staff is of the opinion that the current project would not cause a view
impairment to the property owners at 6517 Certa Drive,would not create a bulky and
massive structure,and would not cause an unreasonable infringement of privacy to
abutting neighbors.Therefore,Staff recommends that the City Council overturn the
Planning Commission's decision to deny the Height Variation and Site Plan Review
Permit and add additional conditions of approval to further mitigate any privacy impacts.
BACKGROUND
On September 20,2010,the applicant submitted a Height Variation and Site Plan
Review application to the Community Development Department for review and
processing.The applicant requested approval to construct a 131 square foot first floor
addition and a 1,467 square foot second floor addition.Pursuant to the Development
Code,the application required Planning Commission review and approval.
On February 8,2011,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the submitted application,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 was recommending denial of the project due to bulk
and mass issues,view impairment to nearby residents along Santona Drive and
.potential privacy impacts to the abutting neighbors to the east and west of the subject
property.As noted in the February 8,2011 Planning Commission Staff Report,Staff
indicated that some minor modifications to the design of the project would likely mitigate
the compatibility,view and privacy impacts to a less than significant level.The Planning
Commission agreed with Staff's analysis and,in an effort to allow the applicant time to
modify the design of the project,the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to
continue the public hearing to allow the applicant additional time to re-design the
project.
On April 26,2011,a revised design was presented to the Planning Commission based
on direction from the Planning Commission on February 8,2011 to lower the roofline 4'_
0",reduce the second story setback from the front,sides and rear,and reduce potential
privacy impacts to adjacent neighbors.Staff presented the revised design to the
Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval.After considering the revised
design and additional information presented by neighbors at the April 26,2011 meeting,
the Planning Commission voted to deny the project on a 4-1-1 vote (with Chairman .
Tomblin dissenting and Commissioner Gerstner abstaining)and directed Staff to return
to the May 10,2011 Planning Commission meeting with the appropriate resolution.
On May 10,2011,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.Resolution No.2011-21
2-3
(attached),thereby formally denying the Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case
No.ZON20 10-00331)applications without prejudice.
On May 24,2011,a representative for the property owner at 6530 La Garita,David
Moss,submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the
proposed second story addition.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.The letter of appeal noted that the Appellant reserved the right to
submit additional evidence and information in support of the appeal,prior to the initial
public hearing.As of the preparation of this report,the Appellant submitted a copy of a
letter (attached)sent to 22 concerned neighbors requesting to meet and discuss the
project and potentially propose additional revisions to mitigate concerns.
On July 14,2011 Staff mailed notices for a City Council appeal hearing to 107 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 New on March 31,2011.The public comment period expired
on August 12,2011.Staff received a total of thirty-five (35)comment letters as a result
of the public notice.'
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The Appellant is proposing to construct 131 square feet of new habitable area to the
front of the existing residence and a new 1,250 square foot second-story to the existing
1,807 square foot single-story residence.The residence will reach a maximum height of
21 '-0".The front half of the second-story will be setback 3'-0"from the first floor fagade
on west and east side and the remaining back half of the second floor will be setback '
1'-6"from the first floor fagade.The front of the second floor will setback 38'-3"from
front property line and will be inline with the proposed first floor addition.All sides of the
second floor addition have undulating facades and multiple roof lines.
Required Height Variation Findings
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 to approve the
proposed project,are listed below:
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.
2-4
3.The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory.
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)ofthe 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 01"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 Recommendation
Staff originally recommended denial of the project design (February 8,2011 Planning
Commission Staff Report)due to bulk and mass issues (Finding #8),privacy impacts to
abutting neighbors to the east and west (Finding #9),and the project was not designed
in a manner to minimize view impairment caused to some properties along Santona
Drive (Finding #5).Staff did,however feel that certain modifications,such as lowering
the height of the structure by 4'-0",increasing the second-story setbacks and mitigating
privacy impacts could result in a project with less than significant impacts to the
neighborhood.As noted in the April 26,2011 Planning Commission Staff Report,the
applicant revised the proposed project to address Staff's previous concerns related to
neighborhood compatibility (Finding #8),building height (Finding #5)and privacy
impacts (Finding #9).As such,when the revised project was presented to the Planning
Commission on April 26,2011,Staff recommended that the Planning Commission
conditionally approve the revised project to allow the construction of a new two-story
addition to an existing single-story residence.Notwithstanding Staff's recommendation,
the Planning Commission continued to have concerns with the re-designed project and
thus for the reasons explained below,denied the proposed project.
Planning Commission's Decision
After reviewing the revised project design and receiving public testimony at the April 26,
2-5
2011 Planning Commission meeting,the Planning Commission ultimately determined
that the proposed Height Variation could not be approved for the following reasons:
View Impacts (Finding #4)
A majority of the Planning Commission believed that portions of the proposed second
story addition would significantly impair a view from a neighboring residence.
Specifically,the Planning Commission felt that portions of the proposed second story
which would exceed 16'-0"in height would impair a view of the Pacific Ocean from the
established viewing area,which is the dining room,of a neighboring residence located
at 6517 Certa Drive (Mr.and Mrs.Morimoto).
Neighborhood Compatibility Issues (Finding #8)
A majority of the Planning Commission felt that the proposed second story was not
compatible with the immediate neighborhood,which is comprised of the twenty (20)
closest homes.More specifically,the Planning Commission agreed that a majority of
the immediate neighborhood was developed with single-story ranch-style homes and
the scale of the propos~d second-story would not be compatible with the scale of other
residences found within the neighborhood due to the small lot sizes found along La
Garita Drive.As a result of the small neighborhood lot sizes,the Planning Commission
also found that the second-story setbacks of the proposed addition were not sufficient
for the existing streetscape and therefore did not mitigate the appearance of the
proposed second story's bulk and mass.
Privacy Impacts (Finding #9)
A majority of the Planning Commission felt that portions of the proposed second-story
addition which exceed 16'-0"feet in height would result in an unreasonable infringement
of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences to the east,west and south.
Specifically,the Planning Commission felt that the proposed windows along the rear
fac;ade of the second story addition would create a privacy impact to the abutting
neighbors to the east (Mr.Watson),the west (Mr.and Mrs.Hayden)and to the south
(Mr.and Mrs.Watanabe)that could not be mitigated.
Response to Issues Raised in the Appeal Letter
The attached letter of appeal submitted by the Appellant raises various issues related to
the proposed two-story addition located at 6530 La Garita Drive.However,Staff
believes that all of the issues can be summarized into the two main points which are
listed below (in bold text)followed by Staff's response (in regular text).
1.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.
2-6
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 and recommendation,written comments and
public testimony presented at a public hearing.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 April 26,2011 Planning Commission meeting,the Planning
Commission did not follow Staff's recommendation to approve the project,the Planning
Commission is not bound to follow Staff's 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 April 26,2011 Planning Commission meeting,the Planning Commission
reviewed the revised design presented by the applicant,considered St~ff's analysis and
heard additional public testimony from the public.After hearing all the evidence
presented at this meeting,including a PowerPoint presentation delivered by Mr.and
Mrs.Hayden (6538 La Garita Drive)and a photograph submitted by Mr.and Mrs.
Morimoto (6517 Certa Drive),the Planning Commission felt that the testimony provided
by the neighbors was compelling and thus determined that not all the findings of fact
could be made for appr,oval of the application.
2.The Planning Commission did not acknowledge mitigation of all
neighborhood compatibility issues,protected view impacts and
privacy impacts through architectural revisions.
The Appellants assert that the revised two-story project that was presented at the April
26,2011 Planning Commission meeting followed the design suggestions provided by
the Planning Commission at the February 8,2011 meeting,and thus mitigated all
potential impacts related to bulk and mass (neighborhood compatibility),view
impairment and privacy.Below is Staff's response related to the specific issues raised
by the Appellants with regards to view impacts (Finding #4 and #5),neighborhood
compatibility (Finding #8),and privacy (Finding #9).
Potential View Impacts (Finding #4 and #5)
Staff and the Planning Commission agreed that the original project (February.8,2011
P.C.meeting)did not cause a significant view impairment to residents along Santona
Drive (Finding #4),but could be redesigned to minimize the slight view impairment that
did exist to some Santona Drive residents (Finding #5).As noted in the April 26,2011
Planning Commission Staff Report,the Appellant reduced the height of the second-
story addition by 4'-0",from 25'-0"to 21 '-0",in an effort to minimize the view
impairment.As a result,Staff determined that the project no longer impaired a view
from the neighbors'properties along Santona Drive and Finding #5 could be made.
Separate from the issue of view impacts to Santona Drive residents,after considering a
resident's photograph that appeared to portray significant view impairment from the
property located at 6517 Certa Drive,the Planning Commission directed Staff to
2-7
conduct a view analysis from the viewing area of the concerned neighbor.Staff
conducted the view analysis in accordance with the City's Guidelines and Procedures
for Preservation of Views Where Structures are Involved (attached).The Guidelines
state that determining the best and most important view requires "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."Staff visited 6517 Certa Drive on several occasions to conduct
a view analysis.The analysis was conducted from the "viewing area"of the residence
which Staff determined to be the dining room with a sliding window,which is the only
window with a potential view of the ocean in a north-westerly direction.The analysis
was taken from a standing position facing the direction of the ocean immediately
outside of the sliding window.The ocean was not visible from this area at all due to a
solid wood fence located on the concerned neighbor's property,along the north-west
property line.As such,Staff determined that the ocean view from 6517 Certa Drive was
impaired by the resident's own existing wood fence and therefore the proposed second
story addition would not cause any significant view impairment to this property.
However,the majority of the Planning Commission felt that views from this property
would be significantly impaired and thus were not able to make Finding #4.
Neighborhood Compat(bility Mitigation (Finding #8)
In an effort to address bulk and mass concerns raised by Staff and the Planning
Commission,the applicant agreed to redesign the project from the February 8,2011
Planning Commission meeting.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 April 26,2011 Planning Commission Staff Report,the project size was
reduced from 1,467 square feet to 1,250 square feet in area.In addition,abundant
second-story setbacks were provided around the structure.By increasing the second-
story setbacks,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 to the east and west,or as seen from the street.Staff felt
that the redesigned project would result in a two-story residence that provides a number
of undulating facades and structure articulation,additional open space between
structures and multiple roof lines to lessen the impacts of bulky and massive structures.
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.
Privacy Impact Mitigation (Finding #9)
Staff and the Planning Commission expressed concerns with privacy impacts to
neighboring properties to the east and west of the proposed project at the February 8,
2011 Planning Commission meeting.Specifically,the second story windows of the
original project,along the side and rear facades,would result in an unreasonable
privacy impact to the neighboring properties.In response to these concerns,the
applicant redesigned the project by eliminating all windows from the east side of the
2-8
residence and provided one translucent window along the west side of the second
story.In addition,the applicant recessed two of the rear fayade windows,closest to the
east and west sides of the residence,1'-6"from the main rear fayade.The applicant
also added two architectural features along the east and west sides of these windows to
obstruct potential views into the neighboring properties.Staff opined that with the
revised window designs,the second story addition would not likely cause an
unreasonable privacy impact to the east and west neighbors.Staff believed that the
privacy impacts would no longer be significant due to the fact that a portion of both
neighboring yards is an unusable,ascending slope and only a small portion of the flat,
usable rear yards would be visible from the second story windows.
According to the City's Guidelines and Procedures for Preservation of Views Where
Structures are Involved,"Privacy"is defined as "the reasonable protection from intrusive
visual observation [and]the burden of proving an 'unreasonable infringement ...of
privacy'shall be on the property owner claiming infringement of privacy."After
considering evidence presented by the property owners at 6538 La Garita in a
PowerPoint presentation at the April 26,2011 Planning Commission meeting,the
Planning Commission determined that the project would continue to create a privacy
impact to the neighboring properties.Although the rendering created by the property
owners at 6538 La Garita did not include the window modifications described above,
the photographs of the silhouette from the neighbor's yard indicated that there may
continue to be potential privacy impacts.Given the concerns relayed by the neighbors,
the Planning Commission felt that privacy Finding # 9 could not be made.Staff now
agrees that additional mitigation measures are needed to further reduce the potential
privacy impacts.Thus,Staff is of the opinion that the project would not create an
unreasonable infringement of privacy to abutting neighbors (Finding #9)with the
inclusion of the following additional conditions of approval:
o All second-story windows along the rear fayade shall be translucent.
o The east,second-story window along the rear fayade shall open from right to left
and the left side of the window shall remain fixed.
o The west,second-story window along the rear fayade shall open from left to right
and the right side of the window shall remain fixed.
In addition to the Staff-recommended conditions approval above,the Appellant
submitted a letter (attached)noting that they would be amenable to additional
conditions of approval which are described in the attached letter.
CONCLUSION
Although the Planning Commission denied the proposed second-story addition,Staff
believes that with the additional conditions of approval listed above,the proposed
project would not cause an unreasonable infringement of privacy to abutting neighbors
(Finding #9).Furthermore,Staff continues to believe that the project,as currently
designed,would not result in a significant view impairment to neighboring properties
(Finding #4)and would not crease a bulky and massive structure (Finding #9).As
2-9
such,Staff recommends that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the project,thereby conditionally approving the Height Variation and
Site Plan Review.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Comments
As a result of the public notice for the City Council appeal hearing,Staff received a total
of thirty-five (35)comment letters from the public.The letters relay concerns with
neighborhood compatibility,privacy impacts and view impairment.For the reasons
noted above and throughout the record,Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has
designed a two-story home that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,does
not create view impairment and does not unreasonably impact privacy to abutting
neighbors.
Appellant's Desire to Continue the Pubic Hearing
On July 28,2011,the Appellant submitted a letter requesting a continuance of the
)
public hearing to a date in October or November.The Appellant requests additional
time to work with neighbors and potentially redesign the project further based on the
neighbors'input.According to Development Code (Section 17.80.070.C.),"the city
manager or city clerk shall fix the time for hearing the appeal within ninety days of the
filing of the appeal."As such,Staff was required to set the public hearing date prior to
August 23,2011.As such,Staff is presenting the appeal to the City Council with a
complete analysis and recommendation.If the City Council is inclined to grant the
Appellant's request to continue the public hearing to another meeting,Staff
recommends that the public hearing be continued to October 18,2011.
AL TERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the City Council to consider:
1)Deny the appeal,thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny the
Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON201 0-00331)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 and Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON20 10-00331)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)Continue the public hearing to October 18,2011 without discussion to allow the
Appellant additional time to workout issues with the neighbors;or
2-10
4)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
continue the public hearing to October 18,2011.
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.If
the Appellant is considered successful,and the Planning Commission's decision is
overturned,the Appellant will receive a full refund of the appeal fee.If the appeal
results in modifications to the project,other than changes specifically requested in the
appeal,then %of the appeal fee shall be refunded to the successful Appellant.
ATTACHMENTS
•City Council Letter of Appeal (received May 24,2011)
•Letter requesting continuance (from representative of Appellant -David Moss)
•Applicant's requested condition of approval
•P.C.Resolution No.2011-21
•P.C.Minutes (February 8,2011,April 26,2011 and May 10,2011)
•Public Comments
•P.C.Staff Report (May 10,2011 -does not include draft resolution)
•P.C.Staff Report (April 26,2011 -with attachments)
o Draft P.C.Resolution No.2011-_(Approval)
o Letter from the Applicant (Mr.Magalnic)
o P.C.Staff Report (February 8,2011 -with attachments)
•Draft P.C.Resolution (Denial)
•Letter from the Applicant
•Public Correspondence
o P.C.Staff Report (March 22,2011)
•Public Correspondence
o P.C.Staff Report (April 12,2011)
o Late Correspondence (prior to April 26,2011 P.C.meeting)
•The City's Guidelines and Procedures for Preservation of Views Where Structures
are Involved
•Project Plans
2-11
Letter of Appeal to City Council
(received May 24,2011)
ATTACHMENTS 2-1
MAY 24 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODe ENFORCEMENT
RECEIVED
DAVID M SS &ASSOCI'ATES,Inc.
Permimng l'Emril olimental Cornptiance l'Deve'topnlentCmlSutration
613 Wilshire Blvd.,Suite 105,Santa Monica,CA 90401,Tel 310.395.3481,Fax 310.395.8191
Via Hand Delivery
May 24,2011
Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner
City ofRandTo PafosVerdes
Community Development
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Randro'P.afos'veates;CA.'1lfJ27!i
Re:Transmittal of Appeal of May 10,2011 Planning Commission Decision
Case N.a ..201.0 -00331.-65.30 La.Garita.Dr.
Dear Leza:
Introduction
David Moss &Associates,a full service land use planning and environmental consulting firm
has been retained by the Magalnic family in regards to the above referenced appeal.
On behalf ofthe Magafnic famiTy rAppJicanf'l we are ffling the appeal summariZed in t'he
attached letter of explanation of the above-referenced Planning Commission decision and the
materials summarized below.
Appeal Filing
Per our discussion by telephone,we understand that the appeal and the following materials
must befifed l10faterthan May 25;2€t11:
•Radius Mailing Lists:One set,of labels and one master list.
•'Plans:Sixsets -tml size :plans stapled amffuldedfD letter size:.
•Plans:Six sets-reduced size stapled and one electronic copy on disc.
SChedutirJg-of AmeatHearing
The Applicant prefers that the hearing be held no sooner than 75-days from the date of the filing
of the appeal.The Applicant needs the time to consider and make additional changes to the
project after consultation with neighbors and iurther fieldwork.
We look forward to working closely with Staff and the neighbors who have expressed concerns
about view impairment and privacy.
Sincerely.
~..",--..,.".C '
.">"'~""""""/."'"~:".'..'...'-.-.00.'... ,
David Moss &Associates,tnc.City+Trans+ApP+5-24-11ATTACHMENTS 2-2
DAVID 55 &A550C1ATE5,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
May 24,2011
Honorable Mayor Long and City Council members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Appeal of the May 10,2011 Planning Commission Decision
Case No.HV/SPR 2010 -00331 -6530 La Garita Dr.
Dear Mayor Long and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of Issac Magalnic ("Applicant"),we are filing this appeal of the above-referenced
Planning Commission decision.We are providing this letter to expand on the description of the
project being appealed,and the basis for the appeal -as set forth below.The Commission's
action became final on May 10,2011 and City staff advised that the appeal must be filed by May
25,2011.
The following statements are intended to provide a brief outline of the reasons for the
Applicant's appeal.The Applicant reserves the right to submit additional evidence and
information in support of its appeal prior to the pUblic hearing.
Description of Project and Decision Being Appealed
On September 29,2010 the Applicant submitted a Height Variation and Site Plan review
application ("HV/SPR")to construct a 131 sq.ft.first floor addition,and 1,467 sq.ft,25 ft tall
second floor addition to enhance its existing single story,1,861 sq.ft.single family residence on
one 7,025 sq.ft.lot.
On February 8,2011 the Commission (i)heard testimony regarding the HV/SPR request,and
(ii)continued the hearing to March 22,2011;the March hearing was continued to April 26,2011.
The purpose of the continuances was two-told:(i)the Commission directed City staff to wait for
a visually clear day to visit 6517 Certa Dr,identify the statutorily correct Viewing Area and the
Best and Most Important View (RPVMC S.17.02.040),and take photo9raphs from the Viewing Area
to determine if there is a potentially significant view impairment ("PSVI"),and (ii)the Applicant
needed adequate time to study the surrounding homes,make specific changes to the height,
massing,setbacks and window location/type in order to mitigate potentially significant privacy
impacts (PSPI")and PSVI,and to confirm no potentially significant compatibility impacts (PSCI).
At the April hearing the Commission viewed revised plans submitted by the Applicant and
reviewed the Staff Report.Contrary to evidence in the record and contrary to Staff's
recommendation of approval,the Commission denied the HV/SPR request by a vote of 5-2 and
directed staff to prepare a Resolution for denial for the May 10,2011 agenda.
Shortly after the April hearing the Applicant hired DMA,Inc.- a full service land use planning
and environmental consulting firm with considerable expertise with the design and mitigation of
view impairment and privacy impacts.DMA has prepared this appeal based on consultation
with the Applicant and its architect,review of the administrative record,and review of the
Planning Commission hearing videos.
The Applicant is appealing the entire decision and intends to demonstrate that the Commission
erred in not making the Findings for mitigation of PSVI, PSPI,and PSCI to a level of
insignificance.
David Moss &Associates,Inc.Appeal City 5-24-11-1ATTACHMENTS 2-3
(CC""')
Honorable Mayor Long aricrCity Council members
May 24,2011
Page 2
How the Applicant is aggrieved by the Decision
1)The Commission did not rely on Staff's evaluation or recommendation.The Staff Report for the
April hearing established and explained how the Applicant successfully mitigated all potentially
significant impacts and that all findings could be made.The Report states "Staff now
concludes that all the required findings can be adopted to conditionally approve the HV/SPR".
2)The Commission did not acknowledge mitigation of all protected view and privacy impacts and
did not approve the project despite extensive architectural revisions.Architectural revisions
made to the project since the February hearing mitigated PSVI,PSPI and PSCI to a level of
insignificance.
a)Significant down-sizing and architectural changes were made which increased second story
yard setbacks by 3 ft,reduced the second story height from 25 to 21 ft.,and reduced the
second floor from 1,467 sq.ft.to 1,250 sq.ft.
b)The project architect revised the project in accordance with t"'~directions of the
Commission at the February hearing.
3)Testimony and exhibits presented prior to and at the April hearing prejudiced the outcome -the
Commission did not rely on properly documented photographs.Contrary to City code and
common practice,photographs were taken from non-viewing areas or with a telephoto lenses
-thus presenting unrealistic views and unsubstantiated allegations of PSVI.
a)Several photographs or massing studies were presented by neighbors without the benefit of
verification by the Applicant or City staff that such representations were factual.
b)Testimony or letters of three owners along Santono Dr.who prior to the April hearing may
have had a PSVI but no longer had a PSVI after the applicant redesigned the project are
not recognized by the Commission as no longer being valid in the administrative record.
c)Several photographs depict visibility of the proposed second floor without defining how such
visibility proves there is an unmitigated PSPI.The location and type of all second floor
windows have been extensively altered since the February hearing to mitigate all PSPI to a
level of insignificance.
4)The Applicant is being deprived the right to construct a second floor addition that complies with
the spirit and intent of the Municipal Code.
a)Contrary to code,the Commission wrongly equated potential loss of,or "interference with"
blue water views with a PSVI.There is no PSVI.
b)Contrary to code,the Commission found that any potential view from a second story
window looking in the direction of an existing house or yard constitutes an intrusive visual
observation.The revisions to type and location of all windows eliminate the potential for
any intrusive visual observations.
Why the Commission Erred or Abused its Discretion
1)There is no PSVI to any surrounding property.Prior to the fieldwork and photographs by City
staff,the Commission could not discern if there was a PSVI to 6517 Certa Dr.At the April
hearing,staff demonstrated by use of photographs that conform with the legislative intent of
Viewing Area and definition of view (RPV Me S.17.02.040)that no PSVI impact will occur.
David Moss &Associates,Inc.Appeal City 5-24-11-1ATTACHMENTS 2-4
~J'i''''''';('''''''''\,
;
Honorable Mayor Long anci"City Council members
May 24,2011
Page 3
Why the Commission Erred or Abused its Discretion (contd)
2)There is no evidence to support the Commission's determination that there will be a PSCI.
a)The simulations presented to the Commission by neighbors are neither accurate nor
confirmed.The simulations are merely non-juried massing studies designed to dissuade
the Commission from approving a well designed and down-sized second floor addition.
b)The applicant has eliminated all porches,balconies or exterior projections that promote use
of the second floor outside of the face of each elevation.
5)The Commission did not fully take into consideration the amount and significance of
architectural redesign that resulted in reduction of view angles from second story windows to
neighboring properties,resulting in mitigation of PSPI.The Commission under-valued the
amount of change despite evidence that the Applicant had fulfilled the Commission's directions
to fully mitigate impacts.
6)The Determination (j)contradicts the express recommendations and extensive analysis of City
staff,(ij)is not supported by substantial evidence,and (iii)did not rely on Staff's findings of
compliance with codified standards.The April Staff Report confirms that the project can meet
the findings for approval:
a)"As a result of this redesign,and based on the reconstructed silhouette,the proposed
project would no longer impair a view from these nearby properties."
b)"By setting the rear windows in by 1'-6",Staff believes that the proposed project vyill no
longer cause an unreasonable privacy impact to the neighbors to the ease and west.This
is because only a small portion of the neighbors useable rear yards will be able to b~
viewed from these second story windows."and
c)"This view analysis was conducted of the revised project silhouette from an area just
outside of the dining room sliding window (of 6517 Certa Dr.)which is the only window with
a potential view of the ocean in a north-westerly direction.The ocean was not visible from
this area at all."
2)A two-story home is compatible with single story homes.The Commission erred by not relying
on established criteria set forth in codified ordinances and based on established local
precedent demonstrated by prior discretionary and ministerial approval of developing two story
homes next to one story homes in the Los Verdes neighborhood.
a)There are potentially many other existing single family owners now or in the future -that
may choose to apply for a second story for at least one of the same reasons as this
applicant -that a family of six cannot continue to live in the neighborhood they have
inhabited for decades without expanding the size of their home.
b)The expansion of many of the homes in this neighborhood can only be accomplished with a
second story due either to small lot size and/or topography.DepriVing an owner the right to
construct a home that is compliant with the intent and spirit of city code -implies that
families that helped define the exact values that a neighborhood hopes to maintain -are
forced to move from the same neighborhood.The Commission erred in failing to recognize
that the applicant has met all the burdens for a second floor.
David Moss &Associates,Inc.Appeal City 5-24-11-1ATTACHMENTS 2-5
·'#"~='w.('~
Honorable Mayor Long a'nff"tity Council members
May 24,2011
Page 4
The Applicant respectfully requests that (i)the City Council consider and overturn the
Commission's Determination,(ii)uphold Staff's recommendation and (iii)adopt new findings for
approval for the HV/SPR based on the administrative record.
We look forward to working closely with Staff during the appeal.
Sincerely,
w~reS~
cc Issac Magalnic,Applicant
David Moss &Associates,Inc.
~~~ner
Appeal City 5-24-11-1ATTACHMENTS 2-6
Letter Requesting Continuance of Public
Hearing
(from representative of Appellant -David Moss)
ATTACHMENTS 2-7
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 Email/US Mall
July 28.2011
Leza Mikhail.Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Request for Continuance and Agreement to Waive the 90 Day Period -6530 La Garita Dr.
Appeal of Case No.HV/SPR 2010 -00331
Dear Leza:
Request for Continuance of August 16,2011 City Council Hearing
On behalf of Issac Magalnic ("Appellant")and per our phone discussion today we are submitting
this request to continue the City Council appeal hearing of the above-referenced case.
In order to avoid potential conflict with a codified review time frame,the Appellant agrees to
waive the 90-day hearing period established in the City's Municipal Code «RPVC S.17.80.070.C -
Hearing Date).
Per your request to continue to a date certain,the Appellant is seeking a continuance to one of
three dates -October 18,November 1 or November 15,2011.
Justification for Continuance
The Appellant has engaged DMA,Inc.-an experienced land use planning and environmental
consulting firm -to work with the project architect to provide responses to all comments and
concerns of neighbors and the Commission.The following is a partial list of the substantive
actions in progress:
•Verify that the statutorily correct Viewing Area and the Best and Most Important View (RPVMC
S.17.02.040),have been accurately documented in the hearing record.
•Take additional photographs from the Viewing Area -subject to cooperation from one neighbor
-to demonstrate there is no potentially significant view impairment ("PSVI")-consistent with
the previously documented opinion of Planning staff.
•Establish and contract a scope of work to enable the project architect to fulfill the list of
deliverables to be presented to support the appeal.
•Set up and attend individual meetings with neighbors to verify valid privacy concerns and
make minor architectural changes to mitigate valid concerns to a level of insignificance .
•Implement minor plan changes to height,massing,setback and window location/type -based
on field stUdy of surrounding homes -to be reviewed by neighbors prior to the hearing.
•Prepare design development architectural color renderings of the exact front house fac;ade
that the Appellant will commit to as a condition of approval of the Appeal.
We respectfully request that staff undertake all necessary actions to honor the continuance
request.On behalf of the Appellant,we look forward to direction from staff as to whether we need
to attend the August 16,2016 hearing or whether the Council can approve this request in advance.
Sincerely,
David E.Moss,Principal
cc:Appellant
David Moss &Associates,Inc.
Gerry Hernandez,Planner
Cilly Continue 7-28-11.do<;
,.j Deleted:Cilty Continue 7-28-11
ATTACHMENTS 2-8
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Gerry [gerryh-moss-assoc@earthlink.net]
Sent:Monday,August 08,2011 5:10 PM
To:Leza Mikhail
Subject:Professional Fax
Attachments:Trans_OutreachLtrs_8-8-11.doc;OutreachLetter-1of22.pdf;Microsoft Word -NeighborList_8-
8-11.pdf
Leza,
Enclosed is one sample copy of the outreach letter transmitted to each of the 22 neighbors who we
understand sent written comments to the City regarding the Planning Commission action which
culminated on 5/10/11.
Please include a copy of the one letter and mailing list in the Council Staff Report.Please note that we
have already met with one of the closest neighbors and are in the process of taking the exact actions
stated in the letter.
Thank you.
Gerry Hernandez,Planner DMA
8/8/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-9
613 Wilshire Blvd.,Suite 105
Santa Monica,CA 90401
310-395-3481
f)310-395-8191
Moss &Associates,Inc.
Transmittal
To:Leza Mikhail From:Gerry Hernandez
Re:Magalnic/6530 La Garita Dr.:Transmittal Date:August 8,2011
of Outreach Letter
o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
Leza,
Enclosed is one sample copy ofthe outreach letter transmitted to each of the 22 neighbors who we
understand sent written comments to the City regarding the Planning Commission action which
culminated on 5/10/11.
Please include a copy of the one letter and mailing list in the Council Staff Report.Please note that we
have already met with one of the closest neighbors and are in the process of taking the exact actions
stated in the letter.
Gerry Hernandez,Planner DMA
Moss &Associates,Inc.Trans_OutreachLtrs_8-8-11.doc
ATTACHMENTS 2-10
DAVID MOSS &ASSOCIATES,Inc.
Permitting I Environmental Compliance I Developme·nt Consultation
613 Wilshire Blvd.,Suite 105,Santa Manica,CA 90401,Tel 310.395.3481,Fax 310.395.8191
August 1,2011
The Watson Family
6524 La Garita
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
Re:Request for Meeting·Proposed Second Floor Addition
6530 La Garita·Magalnic Residence
Dear The Watson Family:
Gerry and I are land use and environmental planners.We specialize in helping clients improve
their projects and work with neighbors to identify issues that can be translated to architectural
changes.
We have been hired by the Magalnic family to help revise the proposed second floor house project
and address your comments and concerns evidenced in your letters and or prior testimony with the
Planning Commission.
Please note that we have reguested a continuance of the August 16th ,2011 Council hearing.We
think It is too soon to come back to a hearing before we meet with you and other interested
neighbors.We formally asked the Council to continue the hearing to late October or early
November!
The city review is focused on privacy and potential view impairment.We would like to meet with
you to have the architect translate your valid concerns into·changes-like window location,
opaque/obscured windows and design,and house massing.
Also,we want to present to the community and the City -an actual color rendering of exactly what
the house facade will look like.The architect is going to take the project design a whole lot further
-and once the design seems acceptable to the most neighbors,it will become part of the public
record.And,we will volunteer a condition that the house must be constructed pretty much exactly
as shown in the rendering -right down to the roof type and color,the house color,and even the
materials for the steps,windows,walls and pathways!
If we have your telephone number we will call-but we would appreciate your calling our office at
310-395-3481 or Gerry on his cell phone at 310-702-2399.
The Maglnic family is excited about improving their project and gaining your support or neutrality so
they can extend their >20 year dedication to the RPV community.Thank YOU for enabling us to
work closely with you!!
Sincerely,
G~a~er,
David Moss &Associates.Inc.
29-11.doc
-L~/?C~
David E.Moss,Principal Planner
Magalnic HOA Gnrl 7-
ATTACHMENTS 2-11
Neighbor's Telephone Numbers
Item No.Homeowner
1 The Watson Family
6524 La Garita
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
2 Paul and Diane Hayden
6538 La Garita
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
3 Lawrence and Christine Young
6518 La Garita Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
4 The Tsai Family
6512 La Garita Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
5 Fey Schwartz
6544 La Garita
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
6 Ned and Alicia Morimoto
6517 Certa
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
7 Curtis and Debbie Watanabe
6531 Certa
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
8 Tony Nafissi
6525 Certa
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
9 Alan Valukonis
28111 Lomo Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
10 Paul Czaplicki
6537 Certa
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
11 Lindley Ruddick
28042 Acana Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
12 Debra and Steven Yocum
28074 Acana
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
13 Dorothy/John Bohannon
28103 Lomo Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
14 Richard Ferguson
28047 Lomo Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
15 Garry/Jeanette Yetsky
28056 Ella Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
16 Larry Ba rlock
28070 Santona
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
17 Jesse 1m
28051 Acana Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
18 Michael and Jolie Hughes
28057 Acana Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
19 Connie Semos
6512 Moreno Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
20 Louise Lalande
28031 Acana Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
21 Arthur and Cheri McAllister
28067 Acana Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
22 Kathryn and Ted Stinis
28069 Ella Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
ATTACHMENTS 2-12
Applicant's Requested
Condition of Approval
ATTACHMENTS 2-13
Page 1 of2
Leza Mikhail
---------------
From:David E.Moss [mosstel@earthlink.net]
Sent:Wednesday,August 10,2011 8:55 AM
To:Leza Mikhail
Cc:'Gerry';joelr@rpv.com;'Carol W.Lynch'
Subject:Re:Magalnic/6530 La Garita:Request for Condition of Approval
We are prepared to make this a separate agreement with individual neighbors.Perhaps just
let the City staff know our good faith intent on this matter.
On 8/10/2011 8:42 AM,Leza Mikhail wrote:
Hello Gerry,
Thank you for your comments.I will be sure to include them as an attachment to the Staff
Report.I would recommend that you voluntarily request this condition of approval to the
City Council.As I explained to you over the phone yesterday,Staff would not likely
prepare a condition of approval to mitigate an impact (privacy)"in the future,after
construction has begun"to make a finding of fact that there is no unreasonable privacy
impact to gain an entitlement to develop.The problem is ....
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1)<!--[endifJ-->Windows are required in a second story
bedroom by the California Building Code.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2)<!--[endifJ-->A project is vested once a foundation is
poured and definitely vested during framing.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3)<!--[endifJ-->There will be no way to mitigate the privacy
impact (if it is determined that there is an impact by the City Council)during the
framing stage ...it will be too late.At that point,the City would not likely be able to
legally and retroactively deny a project or require a redesign because the project is
legally vested.
Unfortunately,if there is a privacy impact,it needs to be resolved prior to a decision being
rendered.The main problem is that every bedroom is required to have an accessible window
(ingress/egress)by the California Building Code.The City Council is required to make a
finding of fact that there is not an unreasonable infringement of privacy that would result
from the second story windows.The City Council can make a finding of fact if they
determine that there is an impact,but that the impact has already been mitigated through its
design so that there is no longer an unreasonable impact.If the impact is not considered
mitigated during the entitlement process,then the finding of fact cannot be made and the
project would have to be denied.
I will speak to the Director regarding your request (I see that you copied him in this email)
and I will let you know if there is another opinion on the matter.You request will be
included in the Staff Report as an attachment.
Thank you,
8/10/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-14
Page 2 of2
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner
City of CR,g,nclio Paras 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
From:Gerry [mailto:gerryh-moss-assoc@earthlink.net]
Sent:Tuesday,August 09,2011 6:02 PM
To:joelr@rpv.com
Cc:Leza Mikhail;David E.Moss
Subject:Magalnic/6530 La Garita:Request for Condition of Approval
Joel and Leza:
In good faith the applicant volunteered this condition in discussions with one or more
neighbors to assure neighbors that a potential privacy impact perceived during construction
can be mitigated through observation and cooperation with an interested neighbor."Prior to
occupancy of the second story addition,and while the second story is in framing,I will
invite you to come into my house to look at the views from my upstairs windows,and work
with my contractor to orient the windows -in terms of size,setback and glazing type -to
minimize views of your backyard and into your home to reduce potential loss of privacy
that would not be mitigated."The applicant understands that staff is concerned that
inclusion of the condition in the draft Resolution implies that there could be a privacy
impact that has not been mitigated as part of the project description as presented to the
Council.The applicant respectfully requests that staff include the following in the staff
report to assure interested neighbors that the applicant is sincere in its offer to work with
neighbors during construction.
Put this in the staff report:
The applicant has volunteered the following condition to assure that a potential privacy
impact perceived during construction can be mitigated during construction."Prior to
occupancy of the second story addition,and while the second story is in framing,I will
invite you to come into my house to look at the views from my upstairs windows,and work
with my contractor to orient the windows -in terms of size,setback and glazing type -to
minimize views of your backyard and into your home to reduce potential loss of privacy
that would not be mitigated."The applicant is requesting that the Council agree to make
this condition a formal part of the Resolution to uphold the appeal and approve the proposed
project.If the condition cannot be made part ofa Resolution,the applicant is willing to
voluntarily implement the condition on its own during construction.Staff would prefer that
the Council make the decision whether to include the condition in the Resolution or not.
Thank you for your consideration.
Gerry Hernandez,Planner DMA
Gerry Hernandez,Planner DMA
8/10/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-15
P.C.Resolution No.2011-21
ATTACHMENTS 2-16
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2011-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING,WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
A HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW PERMIT
(PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2010-00331)TO CONSTRUCT A 131
SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY ADDITION AND A 1,250
SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION AT THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 6530 LA GARITA.
WHEREAS,on September 20,2010,the property owners,Mr.and Mrs.Magalnic,submitted
a Height Variation and Site Plan Review Permit application to the Community Development
Department for review and processing requesting approval to construct a 131 square foot first-floor
addition and a 1,467 square foot second story addition.On September 29,2010,Staff completed
the initial review of the application,at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to
missing information on the project plans;and,
WHEREAS,after the submittal of mUltiple revisions to the project,Staff deemed the
application complete on December 16,2010;and,
WHEREAS,on January 3,2011,Staff mailed notices to 107 property owners within a 500-
foot radius from the subject property,providing a 3O-day time period for the submittal of comments
and concerns.In addition,a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on January 6,2011;
and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,California Code
of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government
Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),Staff found no evidence
that the approval of the requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review applications would have a
significant effect on the environment and,therefore,the proposed project has been found to be
categorically exempt (Section 15303(e)(2»;and,
WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on February 8,
2011,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence;and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission continued the pUblic hearing to March 22,2011,April
12,2011 and April 26,2011.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The Height Variation is not warranted because the portions of the new
residence which exceed sixteen feet in height,when considered exclusive of existing foliage,
significantly impair a view of the Pacific Ocean from the established viewing area,which is the dining
room,of the existing residence,located at 6517 Certa Drive.
Section 2:The Height Variation is not warranted because the proposed second story is
not compatible within the immediate neighborhood.The majority of the immediate neighborhood,
ATTACHMENTS 2-17
\
which is comprised of twenty (20)of the closest homes,is developed with single-story ranch-style
homes and the scale of the proposed second story would not be proportional to the scale of the
nearby homes.The proposed second story,combined with the small lot size,would change the
existing streetscape and would not result in a harmonious relationship with the immediate
neighborhood.Furthermore,the second story setbacks are not sufficient,thereby increasing the
appearance of bulk and mass.
Section 3:The Height Variation is not warranted because the proposed structure that is
above 16'-0"in height results in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of
abutting residences to the east,west and south.More specifically,the windows along the rear
fayade would create an unreasonable privacy impact to the east,west and south neighbors'rear
yards.
Section 4:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1)(g)of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code,any such appeal must be filed with the City,in Writing,setting forth
the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant,and accompanied by
the appropriate appeal fee,no later than fifteen (15)days following May 10,2011,the date of the
Planning Commission's final action.
Section 6:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included
in the Staff Report,Minutes and other records of proceedings,the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies,without prejudice,a Height Variation and Site Plan Review
application (Planning Case No.ZON201 0-00331)for the construction of a 131 square foot first floor
addition and a 1,250 square foot second floor addition,located at 6530 La Garita Drive.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May 2011,by the following vote:
AYES:Vice Chairman Tetreault and Chairman Tombline
NOES:None
ABSTENTIONS:Commissioners Gerstner and Knight
RECUSSALS:None
ABSENT:Commissioners Emenhiser,Leon and Lewis
C:::.z:j~
David L.Tomblin
Chairman
P.C.Resolution No.2011-21
Page 2 of2
ATTACHMENTS 2-18
P.C.Minutes
(February 8,2011,April 26,2011 and May 10,2011)
ATTACHMENTS 2-19
Helen Fung stated she is repres tfteen other families and discussed the
upcoming Charter City i ..e.She had several questions regarding the election and
o the initiative.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.Height Variation Permit(Case No.ZON2010-00331):6530 LaGarita Drive
Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report,explaining the scope of the project
and the need for the height variation.She noted that staff has concerns with bulk and
mass in the rear portion of the second story addition from both neighbors on the east
and west side of the property.She also noted that staff felt further articulation and
reduction in height can be done at the front,sides,and rear of the proposed residence
to minimize impacts to the neighbors,including view impact,privacy impact,and bulk
and mass.She stated that staff was not able to make finding No.5,a portion of finding
No.8,and finding No.9.She showed several photographs taken from neighboring
properties which showed the silhouette and the impact of the proposed addition.She
stated that staff is recommending denial of the project given the further need for
redesign.
Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing.
Salpi Manoukian (project designer)stated the property owner has four small children
and would like to expand his residence to put all of the bedrooms upstairs.She
explained that her first submittal included second floor balconies,which she eliminated
for the neighbor's privacy concerns and she has added more articulation to the second
floor.She pointed out that there is over 8 feet in the setback area on one side of the
residence and 7 feet on the other,as opposed to the typical 5 feet.She referred to the
front elevation and explained the articulation,noting that she felt there was quite a bit of
articulation involved in the design.She asked that the Planning Commission approve
the project and then allow her to work with staff in developing the rest of the elevations
based on the lower pitched roof.
Commissioner Knight asked Ms.Manoukian the ceiling heights for the first and second
floor.
Ms.Manoukian answered that the ceiling heights are now going to be 8 feet.
Isacc Magalnic (property owner)explained that he is hoping to have this addition
approved,noting that he does have four children and he is planning to live in his home
for a very long time.He stated that in speaking with the neighborhood,most were very
supportive of the project
Lindley Ruddick stated he and his wife are in agreement with staff's recommendation.
He noted his written comments in regards to the proposed project have been submitted
to staff and are a part of the staff report.He felt the project,as submitted,presents a
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8,2011
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS 2-20
massive and bulk appearance when viewed from all four sides,intrudes on the privacy
of adjacent homes,and does impair some views.He pointed out that the largest
houses in the neighborhood,with the exception of the house at 28070 Ella Road,are on
significantly larger lots and are single story homes.Therefore their large floor area does
not constitute any large mass or appearance thereof,or have privacy issues with
adjoining properties.He also noted there are numerous examples of remodels and
additions in the neighborhood that have expanded to larger floor areas while remaining
single story.He asked that the Commission follow staff's recommendation and deny
the proposed project.
Diane Hayden stated she lives in the neighboring property to the west of the applicant.
She noted her concerns with privacy to her residence.She also discussed the street
trees in the neighborhood,explaining they have already been trimmed severely and
there was the possibility they could be removed.She asked the Commission to keep
that in mind in terms of impacts this addition will make to the neighborhood.She
explained her concern was with the way the second story was being built out over the
garage wing and how it would start to impinge into the open space of the ranch style
houses.She noted that there are no other houses in the neighborhood that has built
out over the garage wing.She hoped the Commission would take this into
consideration when reviewing the bulk and mass and privacy issues.
Commissioner Knight noted in the staff report staff was recommending either clearstory
or opaque windows for the second story addition.He asked if this was something that
would satisfy her concerns in terms of privacy.
Ms.Hayden answered that she has not seen the revised plans,but based on staff's
presentation of the side elevation,the only window that might be an issue is the small
window on the second story.As long as that window is opaque she did not think it
would be a problem.
Commissioner Leon stated that the applicant noted the setbacks are several feet more
than required,and asked Ms.Hayden if,with the silhouette in place,it felt like the house
was setback farther or if it felt like the house was looming down on her property.
Ms.Hayden explained that her experience with the silhouette was that everything came
out beyond the main frame of the existing house.'
Paul Hayden stated he agrees with his wife's comments.He added that there is a
significant privacy concern with the proposed large window at the rear of the house.He
felt that unless the window is non-openable or is placed up high so that nobody can look
out,he did not know how the privacy issue could be fixed.
Commissioner Lewis asked Mr.Hayden if he would be satisfied if the window were
made opaque.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8.2011
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS 2-21
Mr.Hayden answered that an opaque window would certainly mitigate the privacy
concerns,however there was still the privacy concerns when the window is opened.He
also noted that if the current owner were to sell the house and move the new owners
could easily replace that opaque window with a clear window.
Steve Watson stated he owns the house directly to the east of the applicant,and very
strongly opposes the proposed addition.He felt the proposed addition would cause an
extreme intrusion onto his privacy and would block sunlight onto large portions of his
house and yard.He also felt that this proposed addition will add quite a bit of noise to
the neighborhood because of the way the house will be situated.He felt that his
property value will be adversely affected with this proposed addition directly adjacent to
his property.He also felt the proposed addition is too large and is inconsistent with the
other homes in the neighborhood.He also felt the proposed addition will be to bulky
and massive,and pointed out that there will only be 9 %feet from roof to roof.He
distributed photographs he took from his rear yard.He explained that he always
thought the qualities in his neighborhood would be protected by the Code and
Ordinances,however he now has a perception that the variances seem to be the rule
and the Code seems to be the exception.He felt that if he had not raised issues and
concerns against the Variance it would be adopted.
Salpi Manoukian (in rebuttal)proposed planting trees on both sides of the property to
mitigate the privacy issues.She also stated the windows would be opaque.In regards
to the bulk and mass issues, she stated she would reduce the height of the roof to
reduce the overall height of the building.She asked the Commission to define
articulation,noting there is no guideline for her to follow in this regards.
Chairman Tomblin noted a 90 day extension will be needed per the Permit Streamlining
Act,and asked Ms.Manoukian if she and/or the property owner will agree to this 90 day
extension.
Ms.Manoukian agreed to the 90 day extension.
Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Leon asked,with the proposed changes to the structure height,would
staff be able to make the findings to recommend approval of the project as the first two-
story house in the neighborhood.
Associate Planner Mikhail answered that originally she felt staff could make the findings
and recommend approval with this change,however staff would now rather see the
silhouette redone to show the revision in order to make sure all view impacts are
resolved.
Commissioner Knight felt that this proposed addition could be redesigned to minimize
the impairment of views and the impacts to privacy.In terms of articulation,in reading
the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines,articulation has to do with the upper portion
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8,2011
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS 2-22
of the home and not the lower portion.He felt that this design has the articulation
reversed.He stated he was in favor of continuing this item to allow the architect and the
homeowner the opportunity to redesign the project to address the concerns of the
neighbors and the Commission.
Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Knight's comments and was also
in favor of a continuance to allow for a redesign of the project.
Commissioner Lewis stated he agreed with staff's report and could not make the
necessary findings in order to approve the proposed project.He agreed that the public
hearing should be continued to allow for a redesign.
Chairman Tomblin also agreed with the staff report,noting his concerns with privacy,
views,and articulation.
Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of
March 22,2011 to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project to
address the Commission's concerns,seconded by Commissioner Knight.
Approved,(5-0).
Conditional Use Permit,Variance and Grading Permit (Case No.ZON2010-
00296):5504 Crestridge Road
Associat lanner Mikhail presented the staff report.She explained the scope of the
proposed pr .ct and the need for the various permits.She also showed a rendering of
the project.She'ated staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned
in the staff report.:
Commissioner Knight was ac,,,,,,cerned with the glare that may be produced from the
proposed fayade treatment,an~'"ked if there any type of review period included in
staff's recommendations.
Associate Planner Mikhail answered that s~a(f did not recommend a six-month review as
the proposed additions and remodel is fairly mlhQ(.She added that the applicant did put
three or four panels up on the east side of the bUila'hlil~nd staff didn't see any issues.
,.,,~
",,-,,/'1,
Chairman Tomblin asked staff how the proposed signs wihB illuminated.
Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the proposed signs will ~acklit.She also
referred to condition No.15 in the staff report,which calls for staff to ~review of the
sign lighting.She noted that the applicant is not proposing any change td"tbe parking
lot lighting."
Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8,2011
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS 2-23
Approved
May 24,2011
Absent:
Present:
CALL TO ORDER (>1>i
1C
,;(:"1
-:)'-
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:08 p.m.at ~IJE{Fred Hesse
Community Room,29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.,,)'"
,l;:f'
~I"#f
FLAG SALUTE ,/",
,l
Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of A~e6iance.
d"l'"
ATTENDANCE /
I~
/'
Commissioners Emenhiser,Gerstn?"Leon,Lewis,Vice Chairman
Tetreault,and Chairman Tomblin/it
I
Commissioner Knight was e~Gsed.
I
Also present were Community Develop,thent Director Rojas,Deputy Director Pfost,
Associate Planner Mikhail,and Assist~nt Planner Harwell.
/jf
APPROVAL OF AGENDA /
/
The agenda was unanimou~}yapproved as presented.
l/COMMUNICATIONS /
/
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26,2011
Director Rojas report that at their April 19 meeting the City Council denied the appeal
of the Planning Co mission's approval of a proposed project at 21 Cayuse Lane,
agreeing with the lanning Commission that the applicant's property is a sloping lot and
not a pad lot.II
t
Director R¥distributed one item of late correspondence for agenda item NO.1.
COMME TS FROM THE AUDIENCE re ardin non-a enda items:
Ed S ea updated the Commission on the status of the privacy wall that separates Villa
Ca i and Golden Cove,noting the Planning Commission's decision has been appealed
to the City Council.
CONTINUED BUSINESS
1.Height Variation Permit (Case No.ZON2010-00331):6530 La Garita Drive
ATTACHMENTS 2-24
Director Rojas noted this is a continued item from the February 8th meeting,where
Commissioners Gerstner and Tetreault were not present.He noted that Commissioner
Gerstner has not yet arrived,and asked Commissioner Tetreault if he had reviewed the
tape of the meeting and/or reviewed the minutes.
Commissioner Tetreault stated he reviewed the staff report,however he did not review
the minutes or the tape of the previous meeting.
Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report,giving a brief history of the project,
showing the original application that was before the Commission and explaining the
current redesign of the project.She stated that staff feels the modified project meets all
of the required findings and can recommend approval of the modified project.
Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing.
Salpi Manoukian (Designer)stated she and the owner have reviewed the staff report
and are pleased with the recommendations made by staff.She stated that after the
February meeting she heard and understood the neighbors'concerns regarding privacy
and massing,and listened to the recommendations of the Commission in regards to
articulation.Therefore,the plan was changed to accommodate all of these concerns.
These changes include lowering the overall building height,a decrease in the addition
size,a completely redesigned second story,and an increase in all of the setbacks.She
asked if a window could be added to the west side of the master bathroom,similar to
the window on the front of the house.
Commissioner Leon asked if the additional window would be above eye level.
Ms.Manoukian answered the window would be above eye level.
Steve Watson showed a diagram he made which he explained represents the loss of
privacy to his residence due to the proposed second story addition.He explained that
anywhere he stands in his backyard he will be able to look up and see at least two of
the three windows.He showed a drawing of his house and the current house compared
to the proposed house which he explained shows how the proposed addition will be too
massive and overbearing.He explained the new structure will permanently block the
only source of natural light to the west end of his home.Finally,he pointed out that
there is the potential for an additional 850 square feet of ground floor expansion on the
property which would not require a Variance.He pointed out that the silhouette
understates the project's mass and that the silhouette is incomplete.
Ned Morimoto (6517 Certa Drive)discussed his view impairment concerns,explaining
that he believes the proposed project impairs his far view of the ocean,which is a
consideration in future improvements to his home.He stated that the ocean view is
seen from his living room as well as the outside patio.He indicated that he would be
available to city staff at any time,so that weather is not a factor,in order for staff to
perform additional analysis of height and view from his residence.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26,2011
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS 2-25
Tony Nafissi (6525 Certa Drive)stated he completely agrees with the comments made
by Mr.Watson and Mr.Morimoto.He added that this addition will change the
appearance of the neighborhood .and questioned how this addition will affect his
property value.
Curtis Watanabe (6531 Certa Drive)stated he is opposed to the project,as his privacy
at his rear facing bedrooms and anywhere in his backyard will be severely impacted.
Chairman Tomblin asked if planting foliage along the fence line would help reduce the
privacy impacts.
Mr.Watanabe felt planting would help slightly with the privacy concerns,but did not
think it would help with the bulk and mass issues of the house.
Lindley Ruddick asked that the Commission deny this variance on the basis of
excessive mass and bulk when viewed from the surrounding streets and homes.He
stated that after the re-flagging of the project it was very difficult to distinguish any
changes to the mass and bulk and only by viewing the plans did any changes become
apparent.He noted that when entering the neighborhood from Lomo Drive onto
LaGarita ones eyes are immediately drawn to the flags that outline the proposed
structure.One gets the same view when leaving Acana Road or Ella Road.He felt the
proposed structure,as outlined by the flags,towers over the adjacent single story
homes,and the incongruence will become even more apparent if the structure is
actually built.He stated that the bulk and mass will be accentuated by the relatively
small setback from the street,the relatively narrow lot,the minimal setbacks from the
adjoining properties,and the projection over the garage.As a result,the proposed
structure is out of place in this neighborhood.He did not feel the surrounding neighborr
are opposed to a residential expansion at this address,but questioned the need for the
Height Variation,as he felt the house could be expanded without the need for a second
story.
Debra Yokum (28074 Acana Road)stated she has a view of the applicant's property
from her kitchen and two front bedrooms.She stated she opposes the expansion
because of neighborhood compatibility and privacy.She noted there are no two-story
houses on LaGarita or Acana,and based on the size of the lots,a single story ranch
style home works well in the neighborhood.She stated this also gives the
neighborhood an open feeling and complete privacy.She felt a two-story,twenty-one
foot tall structure is completely out of character for the neighborhood and the rear
portion of the home continues to appear bulky and massive from her view point.She
stated the trees on LaGarita and Acana are cut down to sixteen feet on a regular basis
and a twenty-one foot tall structure in a one-story community destroys the appeal of the
neighborhood.She asked the Planning Commission to deny the Height Variation.
Diane Hayden began by stating she agrees with everything Ms.Yokum said and
therefore will not repeat it.She discussed the bulk and mass of the proposed project,
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26,2011
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS 2-26
showing the area next to her home without the silhouette and again with the silhouette,
and then filled in to represent the view once the structure is built.
Paul Hayden stated the newly revised plan for the second arguably mitigated some
concerns on mass and bulk,however if anything the privacy issues in his backyard are
worse than they were before.He explained that right now his backyard is completely
private and there is not one window from any surrounding house that can see into his
backyard.When a yard has complete privacy,he felt any impairment of that privacy
renders that yard not private and there are no degrees of reasonableness of an
impairment on these facts.He stated that if his backyard could be seen from the
windows of a few other houses,then adding this addition might create a small
impairment of privacy,but it would not be considered significant.He did not think that
such a finding could ever be made on facts such as this where the backyard starts out
completely private.He explained the proposed project will have windows that look out
over his backyard and will be able to see his entire yard.He also pointed out that he
will be able to see windows but he won't be able to tell if someone is looking at him
through the window,and he felt this is as significant an impairment of privacy as one
can possible have in an existing private back yard.
John Bohannon stated he agrees with everything that has been said by his neighbors.
Salpi Manoukian (in rebuttal)stated there is a distance of 15 feet between the second
story addition and the building on the east side of the property.She also noted that his
property is two feet higher than the applicant's property.She therefore did not think the
second story addition would look massive from Mr.Watson's property.Regarding the
neighbor on the west,she felt the applicant has gone out of his way to give up area on
the second story in order to create articulations that would control the privacy issues.
She stated if is not legal and she cannot design rooms without a window.
Chairman Tomblin asked if the opaque window is designed to be openable.
Ms.Manoukian answered that it will be openable,explaining that it is a small 4 by 4
window that looks towards the side yard.
Commissioner Leon asked if there will be an ocean view from the proposed second
floor of this house.
Ms.Manoukian answered there may be a view but she is not sure.
Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tetreault stated that the February 8th meeting minutes have been made
available to him and he has reviewed those minutes.He felt that after reviewing the
minutes and this current staff report he has prepared himself adequately to take part in
this discussion.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26,2011
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS 2-27
Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if there are currently any two-story homes beyond
the radius staff identified when looking at neighborhood compatibility.
Associate Planner Mikhail answered there a couple of two-story homes on Lomo Drive
and there are two-story homes on Ella Road.She noted the majority of the homes in
the neighborhood to the south of the applicant are two-story homes.
Commissioner Lewis stated that he could not support a second story addition at this
location,noting he could not make the findings that no ocean view would be blocked as
a result of this project,that the project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood,
and that no privacy impacts to the neighbors would result.
Commissioner Lewis moved to deny the proposed project without prejudice,
seconded by Commissioner Leon.
Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he was conflicted,as he felt the applicant has
made a good faith effort to redesign the project to lessen the impact.However,he is
also troubled by the breadth of the neighborhood opposition to the project and also felt
there are some privacy issues that need to be further addressed.
Commissioner Leon stated that there have been neighborhoods before the Planning
Commission that are interested in growth and development within the neighborhood,
and the Commission has respected that view and allowed more leniency associated
with second story additions and reasonable privacy.In this case,he felt the
neighborhood that wants to remain at a single story ranch type home and he felt it was
incumbent upon the Planning Commission to honor those views.
Vice Chairman Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Lewis'comments,except for the
neighborhood compatibility issue.He noted there is a two-story home within the twenty
closest homes and this would not be the largest home in the neighborhood.He felt
there has been quite a bit of articulation added,and the house is within the setback
requirements.However,he did feel there are some adverse view impacts and was
troubled by the privacy issues.He felt the case made by the neighbor with respect to
the privacy in his backyard was fairly compelling.He also noted,however,that building
codes require a bedroom have an openable window for emergency egress.He pointed
out that this is a fairly small lot,and to get the additional square footage the applicant
wants would be fairly difficult without going to a second story.
Chairman Tomblin noted that in this area of the neighborhood it appears that the lots
are much narrower than in other areas of the neighborhood,and that the existing two-
story homes in the neighborhood are on these wider lots.He felt putting a second story
on this narrower lot creates almost an imposing situation.He understood how staff
made their findings,and was having trouble not supporting staff's recommendation.
However,he also saw where this proposed addition will cause some problems and it
has to do with the much narrower lots.He therefore supported the motion.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26,2011
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS 2-28
Commissioner Lewis moved to amend the motion that the public hearing is
closed and to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of denial without prejudice to be
presented at the next meeting on the Consent Calendar,seconded by
Commissioner Leon.
Chairman Tomblin stated that he would like to continue the public hearing to give the
applicant one last chance to redesign the project,but realized that there is a May 15th
deadline to make a decision on this application.
The motion to deny the project without prejudice and that a Resolution reflecting
this decision be brought back on the next Consent Calendar was approved,(4-1-
1)with Chairman Tomblin dissenting and Commissioner Gerstner abstaining.
~.Height Variation Permit,Grading Permit.and Site Plan Review (Case No.
",ZON2010-00252):6480 Palos Verdes Drive East
"~..."
Director R.s stated this item was first heard at the March 22 nd meeting,where
Chairman To in was absent.He asked the Chairman if he had read the minutes or
watched the tape 'that meeting in order to participate in this public hearing.
Chairman Tomblin s~G\he would abstain from the discussion and not vote on this
item.\,'.,
"'.....
Assistant Planner Harwell pre~~ed the staff report,giving a history of the project,
explaining the original submittal an~eXPlaining the changes the applicant has made to
the project since the last meeting.S stated that staff was able to make all of the
required findings to recommend approv -.ef the Height Variation and Grading Permit,
and was recommending approval as conditt~ed in the staff report.
"Charles Boag (17 Diamonte Lane)stated that th~~ighbor most affected by this project,
Mr.Kenworthy at 3071 Deluna Drive,could not atte~the meeting and had asked Mr.
Boag to let the Commission know this.Mr.Boag statecNbat,in general,he approves of
the project but he still had some concerns with the guest hb,v..,se being so close to his
house.""""
I.\.t>"""
Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing.""
"">"
Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the project as recomm"e~ed and
conditioned by staff,seconded by Commissioner Leon."
Commissioner Emenhiser complimented the applicant and the neighbors for w~
together to find a solution and felt the applicant has done everything the Commissiort",
and staff as asked of him.'
Planning Commission Minutes
April 26,2011
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS 2-29
Approved
May 24,2011
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 10,2011
CALL TO ORDER
fi\r
>.,...--t
,{
J";'
/,/
/'.'
,//
/
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:07p.m.at the Fred Hesse
Community Room,29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.,/.
//FLAG SALUTE l
ifl
Vice Chairman Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
/~
.,1
ATTENDANCE
Present:
Absent:
/f'
Commissioners Gerstner,Knight,Vice Chairman Tetreault,and Chairman
Tomblin.,/
ll
Commissioners Emenhis,e!r,Leon and Lewis were excused.
/'t
Also present were Community Dev~lopment Director Rojas and Deputy Director Pfost.
,.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA /
/'
f
The agenda was unanimous,J}i approved as presented.
/',l
COMMUNICATIONS ,/
Il
Director Rojas rep~'d that at their next meeting the City Council will hear an appeal of
the Planning Comssion's decision to deny a Special Use Permit to allow continued
use of modular bl!Idings at Green Hills Memorial Park.The City Council will also hear
an appeal of th~Planning Commission's decision to require that the property owner of
the Golden Cove Center increase the height of the south property line wall from 3.5 feet
to 6 feet./
fI
Chairma Tomblin reported his attendance at the Mayor's Breakfast.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1.Height Variation Permit (Case No.ZON201 0-00331 ):6530 LaGarita Drive
ATTACHMENTS 2-30
Director Rojas noted that this item was before the Commission at the last meeting and
the Commission voted to deny the proposed project without prejudice,directing staff to
bring a Resolution of denial for review and approval at this meeting.He explained that
this decision was made with a 5-0 vote with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining and
Knight absent.Since there are only two Commissioners present,he checked with the
City Attorney and she confirmed that at least two votes are required to pass a
Resolution.
Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to adopt PC Resolution 2011-21 reflecting the
Planning Commission decision to deny the Height Variation and Site Plan Review
without prejudice,seconded by Chairman Tomblin.Approved,(2-0-2)with
Commissioners Gerstner and Knightabstaining.
General Plan Update -proposed changes to the existing Land Use Map
Deputy .ector Pfost presented the staff report,explaining this proposed changed is
related to inconsistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Code in regards
to land use in residential area.He explained the inconsistency and staff's proposal to
revise the Land se Map to make sure the land use boundary for these residential
properties is consi nt with the existing zoning code.
Commissioner Gerstner ked if staff had any history on why the zoning didn't follow
the General Plan.
Deputy Director Pfost answered t staff has no history on this and has not been able
to determine why there is this discre~~cy.
Commissioner Gerstner asked if there ~non-conformities with anything that has
been constructed in that area.'\1>,
Deputy Director Pfost answered that the Zoning M~is not changing so there will be no
non-conformities and there is no potential for parceli~on because the lots are so
II .l\,sma.,
~'~,
".1;;,
Commissioner Knight moved to approve the proposed lalld use changes to the
General Plan Land Use Map related to area K,without lot Ii~~,a..s.recommended
by staff,seconded by Commissioner Gerstner.Approved,(4-0}..,
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS
3.Pre-Agenda for the meeting on May 24,2011
The Commission approved the pre-agenda for May 24,2011.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 10,2011
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS 2-31
Public Comments
(August 16,2011 C.C.meeting)
ATTACHMENTS 2-32
Page 1 of2
Leza Mikhail
From:Diane L.Hayden [dianeLhayden@cox.net)
Sent:Saturday,Aug ust 06,2011 1:11 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;'Leza Mikhail'
Subject:Case No.ZON2010-00331 (6530 La Garita Drive)
Attachments:Magalnic City Council hearing Aug 6.doc
6538 La Garita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
August 5,2010
Re:Case No.ZON2010-00331 (6530 La Garita Drive)
-
To the City Council:
We live next door to the Magalnics,the applicants for a height variation on their property who
are now appealing from the Planning Commission's ruling against them.Our objections to the project
have been set forth in some detail in letters to the Planning Commission and in oral testimony before the
Commission;we will not repeat them in detail here.We merely take this opportunity to tell you where
we stand on this right now.We would also like to invite members of the Council or staff to visit our
property at any time,to see for yourselves what we are talking about here.We will send a separate
email extending this invitation.
We continue to have two primary objections to the planned second-story addition:(1)it
unreasonably invades the currently-complete privacy of our relatively small back yard,and (2)the bulk
and mass of the addition is excessive when viewed from any vantage point on our property.Both of
these problems are in part the product of the narrowness of the lots on La Garita Drive,which means our
houses are very close together.Indeed,the relatively small size of the applicants'lot,when compared to
others in our neighborhood,means that this addition would simply produce a house incompatible with
its lot.
The Planning Commission,after examining the record and hearing testimony in two separate
hearings,correctly denied the applicants'request for a height variation.In so ruling,most of the
Commissioners cited the privacy issue as a major reason for their decision.As we stated before the
Commission,the plan presented to them proposed four windows that would provide a clear view into
our back yard.We have lived in our house for 16 years and for all that time we have had complete
privacy in our yard;there is not one window of any other house that looks into our yard.This privacy
was a major factor in our decision to purchase this property (despite the small size of the yard, and the
lack ofa view),and remains the main positive feature of the yard.Taking away complete privacy is,
and could never be,a "reasonable"impairment of privacy.One either has privacy,or not -and this
project would render our yard not private.
Further,because of the narrowness of the lots,any second story addition towers over our yard
and is visually oppressive when seen from our property.This is especially true in our back yard,but is
also true in the front because the plan contemplates an extension of the second story addition beyond the
existing plane of the ground floor.We have continually objected to this extension to the front,as it
creates a "blocked in"effect when viewed from our front yard and front window of our house and also is
at odds with every other second story in the broader neighborhood and the overall dominant ranch style
8/8/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-33
Page 2 of2
of the houses in this neighborhood.We have elaborated further on this objection in our correspondence
with the Planning Commission and will not repeat those statements here.
Neighborhood opposition to the design as presented to the Planning Commission has grown as
more neighbors have become aware of it.Indeed,up to this point no neighbor has gone on record
supporting it.Our neighbors have cited a number of reasons for their positions,and we concur with
many of them.For example,several others have commented previously that the apparent bulk and mass
problem with this proposed addition is exacerbated due to the fact that the street trees on La Garita have
for years been trimmed for view-preservation reasons to a height of 16 feet -well below the height of
any second story addition (there are currently no two-story houses on La Garita).With the trees cut
unnaturally low,any second story simply towers over everything else on the street and thus appears
overly massive and jarringly out of place.We have neighbors who have been forced by the view-
preservation ordinance to cut trees to an unnaturally low height even off the street,in the middle of their
property.Thus this normal method of softening the mass-effect of a tall structure,which would be
available in some neighborhoods,is not an option for us.
Another perspective that we certainly share even with more distant neighbors is that the approval
of any second-story addition in this case makes subsequent approvals of similar projects elsewhere in
the neighborhood far more likely,and that this,on balance,is not a positive thing given the various
issues outlined above.As has become clear from our participation in this process,the character of a
neighborhood can change incrementally -and negatively -through the approval of projects that are
incompatible with the existing neighborhood,especially where neighbors fail to object to such projects.
Of course,this is not completely a self-interested perspective;we live in a neighborhood,thankfully,
where neighbors tend to help each other out in times of need,and seek to protect their neighbors'
interests whenever possible..
It is not that the approval of this second story addition would literally create precedent in the
legal sense.Instead,as is obvious from our discussions with the Planning Commission staff and from
reading the Planning Commission staff reports,the decision makers look at the existing neighborhood
(including those houses that have been modified after obtaining variances or variations)when assessing
new applications for variations.Thus,if this application were approved,even over objections about
impingements on complete backyard privacy,another homeowner three blocks away whose neighbor
proposed a similar addition would likely face the argument that second-story additions that have taken
away privacy have been approved before,and that such additions are therefore not out of character with
the neighborhood.
This is a serious policy issue that deserves serious attention.If neighborhood compatibility
(which is in part what "bulk and mass"concerns are about)and privacy are genuinely important interests
worthy of protection,they should not be allowed to be undermined incrementally through grants of
variations or variances on individual properties.
Finally,we have learned that the applicants may seek a continuance of the August 16 Council
hearing in order to revise their plans.If the plan revisions (which have not yet been made,to our
knowledge)encompass changes to the very features of the addition that caused the Planning
Commission to deny the application -the rear and side windows and the mass of the addition --a
remand to the Planning Commission might be appropriate for an orderly initial adjudication.
Sincerely,
Paul and Diane Hayden
8/8/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-34
Rex &Sydel Heuschkel
28015 Lomo Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
August 4,2011
Mayor Long and City Council members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Letter of Support for Proposed Second Story
Case No.HV/SPR 2010 -00331 -6530 La Garita Dr.
Dear Mayor and Distinguished City Council members:
RECEIVED
AUG 08 2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
We are neighbors of the family that is proposing this second floor addition.
Our house is within approximately 500 ft of the project -we are just 10 houses away.
•We do not agree with our neighbors -there will be no privacy,view or financial impacts
if this addition is built.
•The right thing is for the Council to vote in favor of this project.That is what the
Planning Commission should have done -consistent with the opinions of planning staff
based on extensive redesign ofthe project compared to what was first submitted.
•The family has dedicated itself to this community for the past two decades and can you
imagine -they are seeking "permission"to continue living here.It is the City that should
be begging folks like the Magalnics to stay.This can only happen if their house can be
expanded to include a reasonable second floor -and that is exactly what is proposed.
I urge the City Council APPROVE THIS PROJECT -it is good for the community and is a very
reasonable request by one of our long-standing citizens.
With all good wishes,
4-"S;~/L~
Rex &Sydel Heuschkel
ATTACHMENTS 2-35
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Case No.ZON2010-00331
Location:6530 La Garita
Owner:Issac Magalnic
August 4,2011
Dear City Council and Planning Commission:
RECEIVED
AUG 05 ~~11
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
1.We request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny
the variance by denying the appeal.
2.The size of the structure would be too large and will not conform to the surrounding
homes in the immediate area,which is what we appreciated when we moved into the
area.
3.The addition would still invade our privacy.
4.Another concern is our view obstruction.With the building of the 2nd floor addition,
our views would be obstructed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Curtis and Debbie Watanabe
ATTACHMENTS 2-36
Faye D.Schwartz
6544 La Garita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
____________________...;;R-==ECEIVED
August 3,2011
Honorable Mayor Long and City Council members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Support for Second-Floor Addition -Magalnic Family
Case No.HVjSPR 2010 -00331-6530 La Garita Dr.
AUG 05 2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Dear Mayor Long and Members of the City Council:
I support the proposal filed by the Magalnic family for a second-floor addition to their home.I own a
one-story home at 6544 La Garita Drive -two houses west of the Magalnic home.
After reviewing the plans and looking at the story poles,I don't believe that the house is out of scale for
the neighborhood.The project architect has made many changes since the project was first filed,and
the Magalnics have worked hard to improve their proposal and keep as many neighbors happy as
possible.
They need this addition to house their family -otherwise they have to move and that would be a loss
for this city and our neighborhood.This isn't about making money -it is about a family making a long-
term investment in our community.
I have known the family for a long time -they are good neighbors and the kind of family that makes
RPVa wonderful place to live.
Today our community has one-story and two-story homes side-by-side.Tomorrow,I hope that the
Magalnics will add another beautiful two-story home to the neighborhood.They have promised to
build a house that appears just the way it is approved,based on actual color rendering.
Yours truly,
..f}«(.1 (.C~-(iJ lceo.uO-k-ij;
Faye D.ScIulvartz (j
Homeowner
.~::-:.,;....,"~
i':.:;..
ATTACHMENTS 2-37
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner
City Of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
28047 Lomo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
August 2,2011
RECEIVED
AUG 04 2011
Re.Height Variation &Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON201 0-00331)
LOCATION:6530 La Garita
APPELLANT:Issac Magalnic
APPLICANT:Issac Magalnic
Dear Ms.Mikhail:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
In response to the Public Notice dated July 14,2011 from Mr.Joel Rojas,Community Development
Director,of a public hearing to be conducted by the City Council on August 16,2011 to consider an
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the referenced height variation and site plan,I
request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested height
variance.Mr.Magalnic has sought to inform me of the details of his plans to modify his dwelling.I
signed agreement with his proposal because the distance between our properties seemed to render
any significant effects on me unlikely.However,after further consideration,it occurs to me that there
are legitimate concerns of property owners cioser to and abutting the subject property.Therefore,I
am submitting the following considerations on their behalf and on behalf of the nearby surrounding
community.
1.Views And Compatibility With The Immediate Neighborhood Character:
The immediate area contains single family,single story homes.Surrounding homeowners
have bought into the neighborhood i.n part because of its consistent architectural appearance.
Especially for abutting property owners,doubling the height to two stories as proposed would
both interrupt the architectural appearance of the immediate neighborhood,and could replace
a desired view with a two story wall.
2.Privacy:
Back yard privacy now enjoyed by adjacent and nearby property owners will be compromised
by the planned addition of a second story to the referenced location.The existing fences
surrounding the nearby back yards will no longer provide the same privacy.
3.Use:
An intended use of the modified residence may result in substantial increases in noise,
traffic and parking needs.
4.Property Values:
Increasing the height of the subject home as proposed will impact the desired architectural
consistency of the neighborhood,hence reduce the value of abutting and other nearby
properties.
ATTACHMENTS 2-38
Debra &Steven Yocum
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
August 1,2011
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner
Planning Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Case No.ZON2010-00331 6530 La Garita
Dear Ms.Mikhail:
RECEIVED
AUG 08 2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
We have a direct view ofthe house located at 6530 La Garita from our two front bedrooms and kitchen
windows.We oppose the expansion ofthis property for two reasons:Neighborhood Incompatibility and
Privacy.
,~,;
There are no 2 story houses on La Garita or Acana.Not one!Based on the size of our lots,the one-story
ranch style home works for our neighborhood and gives it an open feeling with complete privacy.That's
what attracted us to this neighborhood 15 years ago.In fact,of the twenty properties and structures that
comprises-the immediate neighborhood in Table 2:Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis,only 1 home
is a 2-story structure measuring 3,497 s.£One other home (a one-story structure)is 3,157 s.£The
eighteen:other structures are one-story and ali are 2,519 s.£or less.Clearly,the new 2-story addition at
6530 La Garita,which will total 3,125 s.£,is NOT compatible with our neighborhood.
A 2-story 21 foot structure is completely out of character for our neighborhood and the rear portion of
the silhouette continues to appear bulky and massive from our view point.The second story view from
the windows would also invade the privacy ofthe adjacent neighbors.Privacy that they have enjoyed
since the day they occupied their homes.This is neither fair nor acceptable.
Trees on La Garita and Acana Rd.are trimmed down to 16 feet on a regular basis because ofheight
limitations.A 21 foot 2-story oversized structure in a one story bedroom community with 16 feet height
limitations destroys the appeal of our neighborhood.
Please deny this oversized addition from proceeding and save the privacy we love and enjoy about our
neighborhood...
'Since~ely,,,.
:',.>:.;;
.,
;.'\'-
ATTACHMENTS 2-39
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail ,-----------._-_..•._..-.-_._..._-_._---
From:Jolie Hughes [jamhughes@hotmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,August 02,2011 9:18 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com
Cc:michael hughes
SUbject:ZON201 0-00331;6830 La Garita Drive
Dear Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and Staff,
As homeowners at 28057 Acana Road,we implore you to uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny the height variance of 6830 La Garita
Drive.We are close neighbors to the proposed addition,and approve of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a project of this size.It is simply
too large and bulky for this neighborhood.It does not fit with the surrounding homes.Also,the large second story windows opening to
the back neighbor are a privacy concern.
We moved our young family into this neighborhood 13 years ago precisely because of the modest,single level homes that are sized appropriately for
their lot size.We had also looked in Orange County and found the "McMansions"of large homes on small lots unappealing.We would ask that our
neighborhood be allowed to maintain its well-proportioned and size-appropriate feel.Each project of this type (added story with overly-
large increase in square footage on a lot designed for a single story)would only lead to more compatibles in the neighborhood for future proposed
oversized additions and eventually the loss of a lovely Rancho Palos Verdes neighborhood.Please stop this from happening by upholding the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny this project.
Sincerely,
Michael and Jolie Hughes 230"7 Acana Road
8/8/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-40
In regards to the new construction at 6530 La Garita Drive (CASE NO.ZON2010-00331),I believe
the completed project would constitute a structure that is out of character,style and scale as
compared to the other residences in the immediate area and as such,I request that the city
council deny the variance 'request.
The height,style and character of the new structure are entirely out of line with the rest of the
houses in the neighborhood.The immediate neighborhood is comprised of houses built to the
"Ranch"style in the early sixties.As defined in Wikipedia.com and about.com,the
characteristics of this style include:"Single Story";"Close to the ground profile";and "Low
pitched roof",among others.In my opinion,it is the low profile nature of the houses in the area
that creates the casual,open-air atmosphere in the neighborhood that we now enjoy.The
proposed project height,look and feel would change this characteristic of our block.
On a more personal note,I can easily see the outline of the proposed addition from my house
and back yard (four houses away),whereas the existing one story home is barely noticeable.It
is a unique aspect of the placement of the houses in the block that,with the exception of our
immediate neighbor to my left,only the rooftops of the houses in the block are visible from my
back yard looking west.This has accorded us with a very pleasant scene when looking west with
only trees,rooftops and the sky above the horizon visible.This unique scenario has been made
possible primarily by the low-slung,close to the ground characteristics of the Ranch styl~
homes on the block.When completed,the subject property will be in clear view from my
backyard and home.
Sincerely,
Alan Valukonis
28111 Lomo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ATTACHMENTS 2-41
Page 1 of2
Leza Mikhail
From:Lindley Ruddick [elruddick@cox.net]
Sent:Wednesday,August 03,2011 4:07 PM
To:Leza Mikhail;RPV City Council
Subject:APPEAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.ZON2010-00331)-6530 LA
GARITA DRIVE
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.ZON2010-
00331)-6530 LA GARITA DRIVE
We are writing to ask that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission
and deny the appeal for the height variance for this proposed project.We have viewed the
silhouetted structure and the plans for this project.It is our opinion that this proposal is not
compatible with the surrounding homes.It presents the visual image of a large,bulky mass
when viewed from the street which is inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding
residences.The lack of a large front set back and minimal side set backs visually increases
the feeling of mass and bulk.This mass and bulk reduces the feeling of an open
neighborhood that was a major consideration when we bought our property and has been a
prime selling point for this neighborhood.
The staff has analyzed the closest 20 homes for compatibility.It is our understanding that the
Staff interpretation of "closest homes"is not the physically closest homes but the homes that
one might see as they enter and exit the immediate neighborhood.The only two-story
residence in these 20 homes is located at 28070 Ella Road.We do not feel that this residence
should be considered as it was remodeled in the early 1990's before the present
neighborhood compatibility ordinance was in effect.We wonder if this remodeled residence
with its lack of articulation,lack of architeptural details and rear deck which reduced the
privacy of the adjacent properties would 'meet today's neighborhood compatibility ordinance.
The lot width at 28070 Ella Road is 65 feet verses only 61.5 feet for the subject property.We
feel it is significant that all of the other structures are single story regardless of square footage.
Numerous homes within the remaining 19 have have increased the living area in a manner
such that height variances were not required.We are not opposed to any expansion that does
not require a variance.
We believe that most of us purchased our homes with full understanding of the surrounding
homes and had reasonable expectations that they would remain compatible.We took into
consideration the location of two-story homes which we felt were placed in appropriate
locations by the original developers.We certainly did not anticipate that we might become
surrounded by towering structures of steadily increasing size resulting in
the "McMansionization"of our neighborhood with the resulting reduction of privacy,increasing
visual massiveness of the structures and visual pollution.The Planning Commission and the
City Council have had many discussions concerning the creeping mansionization of
neighborhoods similar to ours.If approved,this revised project is a perfect example of this and
something which we do not desire.The neighborhood compatibility ordinance was passed by
the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes to assure that this would not be the case.The residents of
Rancho Palos Verdes did not and do not wish to become another beach city with oversized,
visually massive houses crowded onto small lots.
I looked at all the properties within the 500 foot notification radius and found that the only
other two-story home is located at 28129 Ella Road.The residence was remodeled in 2007.
According to the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's Office records,it is a 3,149 square foot
8/8/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-42
Page 2 of2
structure on a 12,270 square foot lot.This residence has a large set back from the street that
helps to reduce its apparent mass and bulk and has no residences located behind it.The
project before you is re'1.Jesting a 2,785 square foot structure on a 7,039 square foot lot with
minimal set back from the street and adjacent properties resulting in a massive appearance
when viewed from the street or surrounding properties and is closely surrounded by houses
on all sides.
We attended both sessions of the Planning Commission public hearing on this project and
have reviewed the approved minutes of the public hearing that resulted in the Planning
Commission denying the variance.In the minutes it was noted that Commissioner Emenhiser
asked if there were any two-story homes beyond the radius staff identified when looking at the
neighborhood compatibility.Associate Planner Mikhail answered there are a couple of two-
story homes on Lomo Drive and there are two-story homes on Ella Road.She noted the
majority of the homes in the neighborhood to the south of the applicant are two-story homes.
We feel that does not give a true picture of the neighborhood as it did not include all of the
single story homes to the north,east and west of the applicant's property.When I used the
500 foot notification radius,I counted 42 single story homes and 2 two-story homes (28070
Ella Road and 28129 Ella Road).There is a cluster of7 two-story homes on the south end of
Ella Road.The lot sizes range from 8,530 square feet to 14,220 square feet verses the lot size
of only 7,039 square feet for the sUbject property.According to the Los Angeles County Tax
Assessors records the area of Ella Road and the area of Lomo Drive that contain two-story
homes is in a different tract than the subject property.These homes were built to different
standards and we feel should not be considered as a part of the immediate neighborhood
when looking for neighborhood compatibility.All of these homes were originally built as two-
story homes and were always apparent to anyone as they were making their choice if they
wished to purchase property near them.The project before you is a completely different case
in that the applicant is asking for a variance,which if granted,will significantly change the
neighborhood characteristics in a manner that the neighborhood does not desire.
We feel that Commissioner Leon summed up the issue very well by stating that there have
been neighborhoods before the Planning Commission that are interested in growth and
development within the neighborhood and the Commission has respected that view and have
allowed more leniency associated with second story additions and reasonable privacy.In this
case he felt that the neighborhood wants to remain at a single story ranch type home and it
was incumbent upon the Planning Commission to honor that view.We ask that the City
Council do the same and deny the appeal for this project.
Lindley &Sandra Ruddick
28042 Acana Road
8/8/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-43
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Louise Lalande [lounsam1@aol.com]
Thursday,August 04,2011 3:37 PM
LEZAM@RPV.COM
6530 LaGarita RPV
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Case No ZON 2010----0031
ATT:LEZAM
GRANDVIEW was developed forty nine years ago,as a ONE story tract.The request to construct a second
floor addition at 6530 LaGarita ,reduces open feeling of neighborhood,towers above the neighboring
residences,unreasonably INTRUDES on privacy of surrounding residences.
DENY APPEAL.UPHOLD DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
LOUISE LALANDE 28031 ACANARD.R.P.V.
1
ATTACHMENTS 2-44
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail ._---__--_._.--
From:Jesse 1m [bugonmyleaf@yahoo.com]
Sent:Friday,August 05,2011 12:04 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;lezam@rpv.com
SUbject:HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.ZON2010-00331)
Dear Leza Mikhail and City Council members,
My name is Jesse 1m.As 1 drive through my neighborhood on the daily basis,1 see houses around me
with very unnatural and unattractive second story additions.As an individual working in the architecture
field,this makes me sad.1 am also concern about how my neighborhood will be more about the badly
designed add-ons vs.single story houses coexisting with the surrounding natures.This proposal will
lead others to just enlarge their property for the profit and sooner or later,this area will look like any
other beach communities with tall houses cramped together with no privacy.
Thank you.
Jesse 1m
28051 Acana Rd.RPV
8/8/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-45
August 5,2011
To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
I have written this letter in regards to the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying
a height variation at 6530 La Garita (Case No.ZON2010-00331).In behalf of my family who
reside at 6517 Certa Drive,we support the Planning Commission's decision to specifically deny
a second story addition.The Planning Commission reviewed the numerous letters and listened
to the neighbors around the proposed project that expressed issues with a second story
addition.
The primary reasons stated are that a second story will intrude on existing privacy of the
immediate neighbors,both on the sides and back.The addition of a second story does not fit
within the overall environment of the neighborhood.As the Planning Commission noted,the
immediate neighborhood around La Garita was planned for and built on smaller sized lots
compared to other areas of Palos Verdes.We agree with the Planning Commission's response
that the proposed project would diminish the community and privacy of the neighbors.There
have been a couple recent second story additions on nearby streets.A noticeable distinction
between these homes and the denied variation are that the backyards of these homes are
against a larger hillside and slope,where the proximity to a backyard neighbor does not cause
an impact to privacy,added noise,and view impairment.
Our family moved to Palos Verdes in 2009 because we liked the layout of the neighborhood,
the family and community involvement of the neighbors,and the openness and view around
our home.We have also expressed in letter and at the prior Planning Commission hearing that
we believe there is a view impairment to our home where the second story addition was
planned.
The Planning Commission made the correct decision by taking into account the concerns and
issues brought forward by t~e neighborhood.They truly understood the message that the
neighborhood does not want a second story addition built at this location.We recommend the
City Council concur with the Planning Commission's decision,listen to the voice of the
neighborhood,and deny the appeal.
Sincerely,
Ned Morimoto
ATTACHMENTS 2-46
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Ronald S.Whitaker [ronnwhit@earthlink.net]
Sent:Saturday,August 06,2011 3:33 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;lezam@rpv.com
Subject:Case No.ZON2010-00331/6530 LaGarita Drive
To the Members of the Planning Commission:
I reside at 28052 Acana Road and have done so for the past 9+years. I also live within 500 feet of the subject
property on La Garita Drive and can see the property directly from my front yard.I write this letter in support of the
Planning Commssion's denial of the request for a height variance for the above-referenced property.
While I also object to the mass and bulk of the proposed project;my primary objection is the height variation
which is completely and totally out of character with the houses on La Garita Drive as well as the surrounding
neighborhood.The two story expansion is incompatible with the surrounding one story structures and will result in
an inappropriate invasion of privacy of the adjacent properties.
I strongly urge the Planning Commision to deny this appeal.
Ronald S.Whitaker
(310)993-7379--telephone
The information contained within this transmission may be privileged and confidentia
8/8/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-47
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Ronald S.Whitaker [ronnwhit@earthlink.net]
Sent:Saturday,August 06,2011 3:33 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;lezam@rpv.com
SUbject:Case No.ZON2010-00331/6530 LaGarita Drive
To the Members of the Planning Commission:
I reside at 28052 Acana Road and have done so for the past 9+years.I also live within 500 feet of the subject
property on La Garita Drive and can see the property directly from my front yard.I write this letter in support of the
Planning Commssion's denial of the request for a height variance for the above-referenced property.
While I also object to the mass and bulk of the proposed project;my primary objection is the height variation
which is completely and totally out of character with the houses on La Garita Drive as well as the surrounding
neighborhood.The two story expansion is incompatible with the surrounding one story structures and will result in
an inappropriate invasion of privacy of the adjacent properties.
I strongly urge the Planning Commision to deny this appeal.
Ronald S.Whitaker
(310)993-7379--telephone
The information contained within this transmission may be privileged and confidentia
8/8/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-48
Nancy Mahr
28028 Ella Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
The Hon.Tom Long
Mayor,City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Members of the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes
August 7,2011
Dear Mayor Long and Council Members:
Isaac Magalnic has appealed to the City Council for reconsideration of his project to
construct a second story on his home at 6530 La Garita Dr.in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I am writing in support of Mr.Magalnic's project.
I live at 28028 Ella Rd.,which is a cross street with La Garita.My house is nine
houses away from Mr.Magalnic's home.Our small neighborhood -which includes
Ella Rd.,La Garita Dr.,Certa Dr.,and Acana Rd.-is mostly single-story dwellings,but
there are several two-story homes as well.In the Ella Rd.cul'-de-sac,there are
seven two-story homes,which were originally built as such.Three single-story
homes,in various neighborhood locations,have been converted to two-story homes
as building projects,approved by the City of RPV:28021 Ella Rd.,28070 Ella Rd.
(just 5 houses from the Magalnic house),and 28129 Ella Rd.The last house on the
list was completed just last year and has a very different architectural style -
including a turret -from the rest of the neighborhood,and also has a very large
footprint.However,I have no objection to this house and am happy that the owners
were allowed to complete their project.
In addition,at 28216 Lomo Dr.,just around the corner from the Magalnic home,a
two-story remodel is in progress,and has single-story homes on either side.
Many streets in RPV have a mixture of styles and sizes of homes,including two-story
homes next to single-story homes.We do not have "cookie-cutter"neighborhoods -
and thank goodness.Yet they are attractive neighborhoods.
I find the key issue in this case to be equity,and this supports Mr.Magalnic's
project.This project does not impair any views.It does not involve a change in
architectural style from the majority of neighborhood houses.The neighbors of the
existing two-story houses in our neighborhood do not have complaints regarding
invasion of privacy.Given those facts,and in keeping with the two-story remodels,
which have already been permitted by the City in the area,Mr.Magalnic should be
allowed to build his addition.
The RPV Planning Commission supported the project.I urge the Council to approve
this project.
ATTACHMENTS 2-49
Sincerely,
Nancy Mahr
RPV Resident and Homeowner
ATTACHMENTS 2-50
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:nancy yen [yennancy@gmail.com]
Sent:Sunday,August 07,2011 6:18 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;lezam@rpv.com
Cc:yennancy@gmail.com
Subject:CASE NO :ZON2010-00331 16530 LA GARITA DRIVE
July 17,2011
ZON20 10-00331
Dear Planning Commission of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Once again,we are writing to express our strong disapproval of the proposed second floor addition at 6530 La
Garita Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes.
It is not necessarily the idea of home expansion that we find issue with,rather the taste of the specific design
plan that is being proposed.Although it is a simple matter of height,the resulting new residence will most notably
invade the privacy of several other homeowners,as the proposed addition to 6530 will have a clear view into
others'backyards,bedrooms and even bathrooms.Beyond this glaringly simple reason to deny the proposed plan,
the set up will ruin the aesthetic of La Garita Drive:a small street filled with one-story houses.Furthermore,La
Garita Drive is comprised of merely seven houses,so essentially anyone turning onto the street will immediately
be met with the sight of an out of place,large two story house that overshadows the rest.
Even though two-story homes exist in the surrounding area,it is neither an intrusion to anyone's privacy or
it is an eyesore to the neighborhood.For a city that prides itself on its beauty,we hope that the Planning
Commission can appreciate this particular viewpoint.
Please understand that the overwhelming majority of our neighborhood is against this design plan and deny the
proposed project at 6530 La Garita Drive.
Thank you
The Tsai Residence
6512 La Garita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
8/8/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-51
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Linda Herman [Ihermanpg@cox.net]
Sent:Sunday,August 07,2011 8:56 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Subject:FW:Proposed remodel of home on La Garita
To:Leiza Mikhail
Associate Planner
Rancho Palos Verdes
We are writing in support of the remodel proposed at 6530 La Garita in Rancho Palos Verdes,a home owned by
Isaac Magalnic.My husband and I live at 28070 Ella Road,just around the corner from where the Magalnics live.
Their proposal to add a second story to accommodate their expanding family is very much in keeping with our
neighborhood.There are a number of two story homes on Lomo and we have seen one story homes expanded
to two stories on Ella Road within the last few years.(I should also add that a second story was added to our
home as well,although it was quite a number of years ago.)
Allowing such an addition is certainly compatible with the neighborhood,does not cause any view blockage,and
does not appear to expand the footprint of the home.We are quite surprised that it has taken so long for this
family to receive approval for their proposed addition.
Marty and Linda Herman
28070 Ella Road
Rancho Palos Verdes
310-541-3373
8/8/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-52
RECEIVED
AUG 04 2011 August 2,2011
COMMUNITY DEVTMEE~~TPME~im and Faye Arbanas
OEPAR ,...
28087 Ella Road
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275
Case Number:ZON2010-00331
We live at the corner of La Garita Drive and Ella Road,
and have been concerned about the size of the proposed
addition at 6530 La Garita Drive.
The proposed structure is very large in comparison to
the surrounding homes,and it does not appear to be a
good fit for the neighborhood.All the homes on La
Garita,as well as in much of the neighborhood,are
single-story.The str~cture is so tall,in fact,that
we can actually see it from our driveway 4 houses away.
Has the owner considered an expansion of his first-
floor?It would blend better with the existing homes,
and not congest the open feeling we enjoy so much in
the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
ATTACHMENTS 2-53
July 23,2011
Garry &Jeanette Yefsky
28056 Ella Road
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Council
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
Attention:Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner
Re:Case No.:
Location:
Property Owner:
ZON2010-00331
6530 La Garita
Isaac Magalnic
Dear Representatives of the Planning Commission:
Our thoughts about this proposed addition have not changed and we presented a similar
letter to the Planning Commission twice.Our neighborhood is primarily a one-story
neighborhood.The size,height,and footprint of this addition on a relatively small lot
still will detract significantly from the privacy of others.The size,bulk,and scale of this
addition are still not consistent with the homes within our neighborhood.What is
confounding is that the 21 foot height 'Of the proposed addition exceeds the 16 foot height
limit for trees that the city has imposed on property owners in that very same area.How
does providing a variance for this structure support other property owner's rights for view
maintenance?
Please consider our above objections before you take any further action toward approving
this addition.We walk and drive down La Garita multiple times on a daily basis.We
would like to see La Garita maintain its single story appearance and for our fellow
neighbors to be able to maintain the privacy that attracted them to their homes in the first
place.We empathize with the neighbors who reside immediately adjacent to this addition
and hope that we would not have to be in their position someday.Please do not rescind
the prudent andfair decision made by the Planning Commission.Thank you for all
your consideration in this matter.
ATTACHMENTS 2-54
02 August 2011
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275-5391
Re:Case Number:ZON2010-00331
Location:6530 La Garita Drive
~Q,4{/~,
The Watson Family ,,~()~
6524 La Garita Drive ~~,()~~~<'()~
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,~~~~)-~~+).
To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,Community Development Director,and Staff:
We strongly oppose the plan to add a second story to 6530 La Garita Drive.We own the home abutting the
east side of this property,and we have serious concerns with how this proposed second-story will affect us.
The specifics are as follows:
1)The proposed addition would result in an unacceptable intrusion on our privacy.There would be
no place in our backyard that we could stand without being seen from at least two of the three large
windows proposed for the south side of the addition.The same holds true for most of our front
yard.And the remaining strip of our front and side yard,not visible from the second floor,would be
clearly within the sight-lines of a large,30 sq.ft.window proposed for the east side of the addition's
first floor.Moreover,this window would provide the occupants with an unobstructed view into our
front bedrooms and bath.We have made clear our concerns about this problem for almost a year.
Yet,despite this ~nowledge,the Applicant continues to promote a design which·violates all the
basic principles of privacy.For the 50 years we've lived here,our back and side yards,as well ~s
portions of our front yard,have been entirely private.Our privacy is extremely important to us;it is
one of the primary reasons we choose this neighborhood as our home.To expect us to live in a
"fish bowl",or seclude ourselves inside our home with the curtains drawn,is completely
unacceptable,and fundamentally wrong.
2)The proposed addition would also block-out the afternoon sun over substantial portions of our
home and yard.In the winter,with the sun at its lowest,the shadowing would be so widespread,
that our home would be almost entirely in the dark.And with only 9%feet separating our roof from
the Applicant's,our side yard would remain shadowed all day,eliminating the only source of
natural light down our main hall and bathroom.This loss of light in the hall and bath is of particular
concern for us;we take care of an elderly parent and haVing these areas well lit at all times is
essential to preventing falls.Additionally,most of our primary landscaping -some of it over 50
years old -would be affected by the shadowing,with much of it probably perishing due to the lack
of light.We purchased our home 50 years ago with the full expectation of a sunlit yard and
structure;we cannot be expected to suddenly give this up and live in the dark when other,less
intrusive options are available -it's entirely unacceptable to us.
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENTS 2-55
3)The proposed addition would further exacerbate the noise problems we currently experience with
the Applicant's property.His present structure (house and garage)is 't"shaped and much of his
yard is paved.These two characteristics work together to focus all his household noise directly
into our home.From phone conversations to the kid's toys,it's all heard inside our home.When
his front door or car doors are closed,our windows rattle.Add in all his social activities,and its
related traffic,and the noise level can be almost intolerable at times;we often have to keep our
windows closed just to cut-down on the noise.The proposed addition (also an "L"configuration),
coupled with the increased activity the larger structure will bring,would only worsen the situation.
Noise would now emanate from a second-story,entering our home unattenuated by fencing or
shrubbery.And the sound of nearby Hawthorne Boulevard,normally far overhead and rarely a
problem,would be intercepted by the higher structure and reflected into our home.The end result
of all this additional noise could equivalent living right on the main Boulevard itself.Moreover,the
applicant intends to install a large 30 sq.ft.window in a proposed living/meeting room directly
across from our bedrooms,a mere 13 feet away.We interpret this as an intentional intrusion since
the room already has another similarly-sized window,several feet away,that faces away from our
home.All this noise defeats the very definition of a quiet residential neighborhood and reveals the
fact that no consideration was ever given to this issue,nor to our concerns.It is not an acceptable
situation for us;other options do exist,and they need to be considered by the Applicant.
4)The proposed addition is too massive for the scale of the neighborhood.There are only 6 homes
on La Garita Drive.Excluding the corner home,which has frontage on two streets and is sized
accordingly,the remaining 5 contiguous homes sit on lots measuring between 60 and 63 feet in
width.From the street,the visible width of the homes,(that is,the width of the structure,including
the garage and roofs),varies between 52 and 56112 feet,and when correlated with lot sizes,results
in an average spacing between homes of 7112 feet.This tight arrangement cannot aesthetically
accommodate a structure as large as what's being proposed.Additionally,existing roof heights
measure between 13 and 14112 feet,and at 21 feet,the proposed second story would tower
uncomfortably over all the adjacent properties,visible to almost all the households in the
neighborhood.Anyone entering onto La Garita Drive would have their attention drawn immediately
to this structure.And from an architectural standpoint,it's a featureless box;it does not have a
style consistent with any neighboring property.Moreover,its imposing presence would probably
never be diminished by any future two-story additions on La Garita;all the homes on the street,
except for the Applicant's,sit significantly within protected view-plains of residents on Santona
Drive.With other less imposing options available to the applicant,we cannot consider this
proposed addition anything less than an unacceptable intrusion,and a poor fit for the
neighborhood.
5)The proposed addition would adversely impact our property value.If an exact duplicate of our
home was placed on the market along with ours,and the only differences between the properties
were that our home had a 21 foot high two-story structure adjacent to it,that it had no privacy
anywhere in the yard nor in several of the bedrooms and bath,that it had no natural light in half the
home,that it had a yard that was shadowed every afternoon,and that it had an environment
inundated with noise,then it's more than obvious that the duplicate home would sale first,and sale
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENTS 2-56
at a higher price.Losing our home's value,and marketability,is completely unacceptable to us.
Our home is our life's work;it's been our purpose and security for 50 years.
We were one of the first families to move into this tract,and in the 50 years since,we have never faced a
situation,such as this,which could so adversely,and so thoroughly,affect the qualities we value most
about our home and the neighborhood:the open,uncongested environment;the privacy;and the quiet
surroundings.These qualities are the primary reason we live here,and why we believe many people
choose this neighborhood as their home as well.These qualities are also what differentiates our
community from others in the South Bay;for the same amount of money,we could easily get twice the
home,and twice the lot elsewhere,but not with an uncongested environment,nor the privacy,nor the quiet
surroundings.We hope that these qualities are an important consideration during your decision process.
Please feel free to contact us if you require any further information
Sincerely,
'7k(j)~~
The Watson Family
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS 2-57
Case Number:ZON2010-00331
August 1,2011 ~~o
Betty Sessions '~4vC'
28104 Lomo Road r,~Q~
Rancho Palos Verdes,Calif,90275 c~~~~~
~~~~.
:iffJ-~~
I am concerned about the size of the addition planned for 6530 La Garita Drive.I feel that
it will result in a structure which is too large for the neighborhood.I live on Lomo Road,
where La Garita Drive intersects,and am close enough to see this structure on my daily
travels -it's only 5 houses away.I have lived here almost 50 years,and have always
enjoyed the neighborhood's open feeling.A structure this large,on so small of a lot,and
next to all the smaller homes,will diminish this pleasant uncongested environment.
Sincerely,
~~
ATTACHMENTS 2-58
".to
July 'd,j"20'''''6',~"4t,~~.()(~",
Dorothy and ~~Bo~~Jon
28103 Lomo Drf~~,'I
Rancho Palos ver~~O~+~
CA 90275 ~
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275-5391
Case Number:ZON2010-00331
My wife and I live on the corner of Lomo Drive and La Garita and
we feel that the second-floor addition,planned for 6530 La
Garita,is not compatible with the neighborhood.Its bulk and
mass far exceed the scale of neighboring homes,which are all
single-story.
We are also concerned with all the additional noise and traffic
the larger structure will bring.The residence is already .~ery
busy and noisy,with cars coming and going all the time.
Doubling-up the size of the house will only bring more of this
activity,putting undue pressure on the neighborhood and
surrounding streets.And construction will bring with it months
of noise,trucks,dust,and parking shortages -problems which
generally never consider the surrounding neighbors and their
environment.
We have lived in this neighborhood for 50 years and consider its
quiet,uncongested ambiance the primary reason why this
neighborhood is so comfortable.Allowing so large a structure
to be built on such a small lot,amongst all the smaller homes,
would only.ruin this ambiance.
We urge the Council to deny this application.
Dorothy and John Bohannon
Jt~~...."'0...
ATTACHMENTS 2-59
Dear Planning Commission of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Once again,we are writing to express our strong disapproval of the proposed
second floor addition at 6530 La Garita Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes.
It is not necessarily the idea of home expansion that we find issue with,rather the
taste of the specific design plan that is being proposed.Although it is a simple matter of
height,the resulting new residence will most notably invade the privacy of several other
homeowners,as the proposed addition to 6530 will have a clear view into others'
backyards,bedrooms and even bathrooms.Beyond this glaringly simple reason to deny the
proposed plan,the set up will ruin the aesthetic of La Garita Drive:a small street filled with
one-story houses.Furthermore,La Garita Drive is comprised of merely seven houses,so
essentially anyone turning onto the street will immediately be met with the sight of an out of
place,large two story house that overshadows the rest.
Even though two-story homes exist in the surrounding area,it is neither an intrusion to
anyone's privacy or it is an eyesore to the neighborhood.For a city that prides itself on its
beauty,we hope that the Planning Commission can appreciate this particular viewpoint.
Please understand that the overwhelming majority of our neighborhood is against this
design plan and deny the proposed project at 6530 La Garita Drive.
Thank you
The Tsai Residence
6512 La Garita Drive
Rancho Palos Ve des,CA 90275
(...;.Q 1t-It.=:J:::.:::::.---=-
{;J
ATTACHMENTS 2-60
August 1,2011
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275-5391
Case Number:ZON2010-00331
Location:6530 La Garita Drive
To the City Council:
We live two houses east of 6530 La Garita and do not support the proposal to add a second-story
to this property.We feel it would result in a structure to massive for the scale of the surrounding
homes,significantly impacting the overall character of the neighborhood.The lots within this
portion of the tract are narrow and can only comfortably sustain single-story structures.
We chose this community as our home 10 years ago.The reason we were drawn to this
particular neighborhood was because it was quiet,and not congested.A large second-story
addition,like what is proposed,would degrade the neighborhood's uniqueness and visually
overpower its aesthetic consistency.
Sincerely,
~~Q.:Z~/;:~~------1'~aw~ence &c~n~~
6518 La Garita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275
ATTACHMENTS 2-61
Ted and Kathryn Stinis
28069 Ella Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275
Case Number:ZON2010-00331
To the City Council:
We feel that the proposed structure is too large for the neighborhood and completely inconsistent
with its character.
We moved to this neighborhood 35 years ago,choosing it because of its uncongested
environment.The neighborhood is comfortably scaled for single story homes.Adding large
two-story structures would only increase the density and degrade the pleasant ambiance of the
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Ted and Kathryn Stinis
ATTACHMENTS 2-62
August 4,2011
RECEIVED
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement Commission
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Attention:Leza Mikhail
AUG 04 2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Dear Planning Commission:
We live at 28212 Ella Road and are deeply opposed to the proposed plans for the expansion ofthe
property at 6530 La Garita Drive,owner Mr.Isaac Magalnic.We have been homeowners in this neighborhood
for almost 20 years and have always cherished the tranquil ambiance and relaxed,non-pretentious qualities of
this community.With a few exceptions,the vast majority of the homes are single-story,and many homeowners
who did expand did so by adding square footage on the ground,thereby preserving the airy openness of our
area.Not too long ago,a huge 2 nd_story addition was built at 28129 Ella Road.The resulting gaudy
"McMansion"is grotesque and defInitely an eyesore because it just doesn't fIt and make sense for this
neighborhood.
Besides the negative change of character for this region,we have two other concerns.First,a dangerous
precedent is being set.One neighbor is watching the Magalnic developments closely.He also desires to add a
second story to his current home.This potential plan leads to our second concern-the loss of privacy.True,the
home next to ours (south side)is two stories,but we knew this when we moved in,and there are NO windows
facing our home and backyard,thus giving us much-prized respite from the outside world.The two-story
houses,in general,conform to the neighborhood because they do not push out to the limits of their lot sizes,
thus infringing on the space and privacy needs of the other residents.
If Mr.Magalnic succeeds,our neighbor (northeast)will be next to construct upward.His planned second
level will overlook our backyard,family room window,and bedroom window,thus invading our family's rights
to privacy.Where does the over-building end for our small Los Verdes community?Certainly,there are areas
in Palos Verdes that foster the huge homes,but it is NOT this one.
Please assist this concerned neighborhood and help it preserve its genteel,simple personality.Expansive
second stories are just inappropriate for our local community.Please oppose and stop the proposed addition at
6530 La Garita Drive,as well as any other "mansion-izing"plans.
ATTACHMENTS 2-63
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail ._---_._------_._--_._-_.._-----".,~.-
From:Lash,Jon Uon.lash@pardeehomes.com]
Sent:Tuesday,August 02,2011 4:05 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;lezam@rpv.com
SUbject:6530 La Garita -Case ZON2010-00331
Gentlemen,
I own the property at 28025 Acana Street.After reviewing the proposed plans for 6530 La Garita,I am concerned that they
are not consistent with the existing houses in the neighborhood.The additional story will unreasonably intrude on the
privacy of surrounding residences,and change the character of the neighborhood.I request the city deny the appeal and
uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
I am not against adding additional square footage as long as the house remains a single story.
Thank You for your consideration.
Jon Lash
8/2/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-64
-----Original Message-----
From:Connie Semos [mailto:bcomnast@msn.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 26,2011 8:09 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com
Subject:
July 26,2011
Re:6530 La Garita Drive
Dear Mayor Long and Councilmen,
Please do not approve the revised plan for the property at 6530 La Garita
Drive.I can appreciate anyone desiring more living space as we are
expanding our own home at this time,but the revised plan is inappropriate,
disrupting the "harmony"of the area.
The vast majority of homes in the Los Verdes area are mid century ranch
homes that were built in the early 1960's.Many homes have been tastefully
remodeled over the years,with sensitivity to their neighbors and keeping
within the look and feel of the neighborhood.The homes that are
incongruous with the neighborhood are glaringly obvious and stick out like
warts.This plan would do exactly that.
6530 La Garita is around the comer from my horne.I walk there several time
a week and would hate to see the planned bulky massive structure there,
obscuring light in the area and hovering over the nearby homes.The
proposed plan dwarfs the homes around it and takes away the feeling of open
space and light.
Though the setbacks may be allowable,the general appearance of this
remodel plan is not in any way compatible with the nearby homes or the
neighborhood in general.There are many creative ways to increase the
living space in these homes.This is not one of them.
At present,there are larger homes in Palos Verdes for sale in nearby
neighborhoods.Has the owner considered this option?
Connie Semos
Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTACHMENTS 2-65
July 26,2011
Re:6530 La Garita Drive
Dear Mayor Long and Councilmen,
Please do not approve the revised plan for the property at 6530 La Garita
Drive.I can appreciate anyone desiring more living space as we are
expanding our own home at this time,but the revised plan is Inappropriate,
disrupting the "harmony"of the area.
The vast majority of homes in the Los Verdes area are mid century ranch
homes that were bulit in the early 1960's.Many homes have been
tastefully remodeled over the years,with sensitivity to their neighbors and
keeping within the look and feel of the neighborhood.The homes that are
incongruous with the neighborhood are glaringly obvious and stick out like
warts.This plan would do exactiy that.
6530 La Garita is around the corner from my home.I walk there several
time a week and would hate to see the planned bulky massive structure
there,obscuring light in the area and hovering over the nearby homes.The
proposed plan dwarfs the homes around it and takes away the feeling of
open space and light.
Though the setbacks may be allowable,the general appearance of this
remodel plan Is not in any way compatible with the nearby homes or the
neighborhood in general.There are many creative ways to increase the
liVing space in these homes.This is not one of them.
At present,there are larger homes in Palos Verdes for sale in nearby
neighborhoods.Has the owner considered this option?
Connie Semos
Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTACHMENTS 2-66
RECEIVED
JUL 072011
Site Plan Review &Height Variation (CASE NO.ZON2010-00331)
6530 La Garita
July 5,2011
PAGE 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
If you have any questions concerning this application or the City's height variation or
extreme slope permit review,please contact Associate Planner Leza Mikhail at (310)
544-5228,or via e-mail atlezam@rpv.com.The final staff report will be available on the
City's website,·http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/.by 5:30 p.m.on August 11,2011,
under Current City Council Agenda.
NOTE:STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65009:If you challenge this
application in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised in written correspondence delivered to the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes during the public review period described in this notice.
ATTACHMENTS 2-67
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA HIGH SCHOOL'r.
27118 Silver Spur Road •Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274
(310)377-4888
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2011
June 25,2011
Honorable Mayor Long and City Council members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Information Regarding the Appellant
Case No.HVISPR 2010-00331 -6530 La Garita Dr.
Dear Mayor Long and Members of the City Council:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
I am a teacher at the Peninsula High School here in the Palos Verdes Peninsula
since 1967.For many years I served as chair of the social science department.
You may be wondering why a high school teacher,whose main teaching areas are
history and comparative religion,would be writing you about this case.
It is quite simple - I want to make sure you are aware how important the appellant -
Rabbi Isaac Magalnic and his family are to the greater community at large on the..
Palos Verdes Peninsula.
For the past 18 years,Rabbi Magalnic has been a guest lecturer in the 11 th and
12th grades on the subject of comparative religion.
He unselfishly comes to the school several times a year to participate and share his
knowledge with my students.
I have gotten to know him quite well over the years and know how dedicated he is to
not just his congregation -but to a much wider community here on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula.I urge you to take into consideration his contribution to the community at
large in regards to the Council's deliberation over his proposed project.I realize the
decision regarding a second floor is separate from how he gives freely of his time to
the community,but I also know that it is important that he remain in Rancho Palos
Verdes to continue his work on several fronts.
I appreciate your consideration of who the applicant is in this case.If you have any
further questions,please do not hesitate to call me at 310-540-6203.
Sincerely,
P--;Y(~
Jim Maechling
Social Science Department
Palos Verdes Peninsula High School
ATTACHMENTS 2-68
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Faye Schwartz [schwartz6544@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,July 19,2011 4:29 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Subject:Isaac Magalnic appeal (Case #ZON2009-001 08)
Dear Ms.Mikhail,
I am writing to comment on Isaac Magalnic's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to
deny the height variation and site plan of the proposed additions to the home at 6530 La Garita,
RPV.I also live on La Garita (a street which is only one block long)and wish to go on record as
approving the proposed home addition.I have no complaints to register about this plan.I will be
available to speak at the public hearing at 7:00 p.m.on Tuesday,August 16,at Hesse Park.
Please let me knowwhether I need to submit my comment in any different form than this.
Thank you,
Faye Schwartz
6544 La Garita Dr.
RPV.CA
7/19/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-69
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail-------_._--_.__.__._---_.•_---_.__._.._.._-----_._._-'"_._-"
From:Art McAllister [bigmacpv@aol.com]
Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 9:16 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;lezam@rpv.com
Subject:Case #ZON201 0-00331,6530 La Garita Drive
Dear Sir or Madam:
We live on Acana Road,approximately 100 feet from the subject property.We each pass by the intersection
several times a day,and believe that the proposed expansion will detract from the views and enjoyment of the
neighborhood.
We support the Planning Commission's decision to deny this height variance,and wanted to have our opinions on
record.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Arthur W.McAllister
28067 Acana Road
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-377 -1114
big maq~v.@aol.com
8/2/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-70
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Richard &Phyllis Goetz [goetzrk1@cox.net]
Sent:Monday,August 01,2011 9:30 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Subject:Case No.ZON2010-00331
City Council and Staff,
Concerning the house at 6530 La Garita Drive.(Case No.ZON2010-00331)
When this addition was built back in 1962 there were no two story houses.In the following years a
small number of two story houses have been allowed.Some of these two story houses were built
without the neighbor's consent or knowledge',Now,each one that is enlarged,uses the proceeding
bUildings as the norm.This trend needs to be stopped.I would ask that the City Council uphold the
Planning Commission's decision and deny this appeal.These houses threaten to decrease the value of
my property,increase the congestion and destroy my view and privacy.
Both Acana and La Garita are very narrow streets.Larger homes mean more cars.These cars would be
parked along the street making the streets even harder to navigate.The driveways of many of these
houses do not meet today's driveway length requirements.There is no room to park the cars in the
driveway without blocking the sidewalk.
The lots are small and a large house takes away the outdoor space and limits the privacy of the
adjacent houses.
Richard and Phyllis Goetz
28045 Acana Rd
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA
8/2/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-71
P .C.Staff Report
(May 10,2011 -does not include draft Resolution)
ATTACHMENTS 2-72
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
C.HAIRMAN AND MEMB~~2HE PLANNING COMMISSION
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNI1j\9EVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MAY 10,2011
SUBJECT:HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.2010-
00331);PROJECT ADDRESS-6530 LA GARITA (LANDOWNER-
ISAAC MAGALNIC)
Staff Coordinator:Leza Mikhail,Associate Plann~
RECOMENDATION
Adopt P.C.Resolution No.2011-_;thereby denying,without prejudice,a Height Variation
and Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON201 0-00331)request to construct a 1,250 squar~foot
second story addition and 131 squar.e foot first story addition to the existing single-story
residence.'
DISCUSSION
At the February 8,2011 Planning Commission meeting,Staff recommended denial of the
proposed project which involved a request to construct a new second-story addition to the
existing single-story residence.At the February 8,2011 meeting,the Planning Commission
heard testimony from a number of neighbors regarding privacy impacts,bulk and mass
issues related to a second story addition and potential view impairment concerns from a
neighbor at 6517 Certa Drive.After hearing the public testimony,the Planning Commission
continued the public hearing on multiple occasions to allow the Applicant to modify the
design of the project with direction to lower the roofline 5'-0",reduce the second story
setback from the front,sides and rear and reduce potential privacy impacts to adjacent
neighbors.
At the April 26,2011 Planning Commission meeting,the Planning Commission reviewed
the revised design presented by the applicant and heard additional testimony from
concerned neighbors within the immediate neighborhood.The Planning Commission
acknowledged the efforts by the Applicant to redesign the project in order to mitigate the
aforementioned concerns,however felt that a second story addition could not be approved
for the following reasons:
•The proposed second story addition would significantly impair a view from the
ATTACHMENTS 2-73
established viewing area (dining room)of the property located at 6517 Certa
Drive.
• A second story addition is not compatible within the immediate neighborhood,
which is comprised of the 20 closest homes,as a majority (19 out of 20)
homes are single story.Furthermore,the lot sizes within the immediate
neighborhood are small and cannot accommodate a second story structure
without creating bulk,mass and scale issues.
•The rear windows of the proposed second story addition would create an
unreasonable infringement of privacy to neighboring properties to the east,
west and south due to the average lot sizes and small side yard setbacks
found within the neighborhood.
With a vote of 5-0,with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining and Commissioner Knight
absent,the Planning Commission closed the public hearing,denied the proposed
project without prejudice,and directed Staff to bring back a Resolution for denial on the
next meeting's consent calendar.The Resolution of denial has been prepared by Staff
and is now being presented to the Planning Commission for adoption.Adoption of the
Resolution will constitute a formal denial without prejudice of the project and begin a
15-day appeal period,at which time any interested party may appeal the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council.
Attachments:
•P.C.Resolution
ATTACHMENTS 2-74
P.c.Staff Report
(April 26,2011 -with attachments)
ATTACHMENTS 2-75
SUBJECT:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBE~SOFT E PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPM T RECTOR
APRIL 26,2011
HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.2010-00331);
PROJECT ADDRESS -6530 LA GARITA (LANDOWNER -ISAAC
MAGALNIC)
Staff Coordinator:Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner@
RECOMMENDATION
As the applicant has revised the proposed project to address Staff's previous concerns related
to neighborhood compatibility,bUilding height and privacy concerns,Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt P.C.Resolution No.2011-_,thereby conditionally approving the
Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON201 0-00331)to allow the construction of
a new two-story addition to an existing single-story residence.
BACKGROUND
On September 20,2010,the applicant submitted a Height Variation and Site Plan Review
application to the Community Development Department for review and processing.The
applicant requested approval to construct a 131 square foot first floor addition and a 1,467
square foot second floor addition.
On February 8,2011,the application was heard by the Planning Commission.At that time,Staff
was recommending that the Planning Commission deny the proposed project because Staff felt
that the proposed project was not compatible with the immediate neighborhood,resulted in
privacy impacts to the abutting neighbors to the east and west and was not designed in a
manner to minimize view impairment caused to some properties along Santona Drive.At the
meeting,the Planning Commission heard testimony from a number of neighbors regarding
privacy impacts,bulk and mass issues related to a second-story addition,and potenti.al view
impairment from properties along Santoma and Certa Drive.After hearing the public testimony,
the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 22,2011 to allow the Applicant
to modify the design of the project with direction to lower the roofline 4'_0",reduce the second
story setback from the front,sides and rear and reduce potential privacy impacts to the adjacent
neighbors.The Planning Commission also requested that Staff visit 6517 Certa to conduct a
view analysis due to a photograph of the proposed project as viewed from this property
submitted to Staff by the property owner at 6517 Certa Drive just prior to the February 8,2011
Planning Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS 2-76
P.C.Staff Report (Case No.ZON2010.00331)
April 12,2011
Page 2
Due to the inability of Staff and the property owner at 6517 Certa Drive to meet on a day with
clear weather conditions,with the property owner's consent,the public hearing was continued
from March 22,2011 to April 12,2011,and again to April 26,2011.The item is now back before
the Planning Commission for its continued consideration.
DISCUSSION
As noted in the Background section above,the Planning Commission agreed with Staff and
raised concerns with the overall height of the proposed structure,second story setbacks and the
privacy impacts resulting from the project.In response to the Planning Commission's concerns,
the applicant is proposing the following design modifications:
View Impairment
In order to address concerns expressed by Staff and the Planning Commission regarding Height
Variation finding No.5,which requires a project to be designed in a manner that reasonably
minimizes view impairment,the applicant has reduced the overall height of the proposed
structure by 4'_0".More specifically,Staff and the Planning Commission agreed that while the
proposed project would not cause a significant view impairment to properties located at 28063
and 28070 Santona,the overall height of the structure could be reduced to further mitigate the
slight view impairment that did exist.In response,the applicant has reduced the overalll:leight of
the structure from 25'_0"to 21'-0"in order to address this concern.As a result of this redesign,
and based on the reconstructed silhouette,the proposed project would no longer impair aview
from these nearby properties.As a result,Height Variation Finding NO.5 can now be made for
the re-designed project.
Neighborhood Compatibility
In order to address concerns raised by Staff and discussed by the Planning Commission related
to Neighborhood Compatibility,namely bulk and mass,the applicant ha$redesigned the
proposed project's square footage and has provided additional second-story setbacks to soften
the appearance of the structure as seen from the street and all neighboring properties.
Specifically,the applicant has made the following changes:
•Maintained the 3'_0"second-story side setback at the front of the residence and
increased the second-story side setbacks at the rear of the residence by 1'-6".
•Increased the setback of the second story front fagade from 33'-6"to 38'_3"so that
the second floor fagade would be inline with the proposed first floor addition.
•Moved the second story rear yard facade by 4'_5"in order to eliminate a
cantilevered second story and align the second story with the first story facade.
•The overall square footage of the second story floor area was reduced from 1,467
square feet to 1,250 square feet
ATTACHMENTS 2-77
P.C.Staff Report (Case No.ZON201 0-00331)
April 12,2011
Page 3
As a result of these changes,Staff no longer feels that the proposed second-story addition
creates bulk and mass impacts as seen from neighboring properties to the east and west,or as
seen from the street.Therefore,Staff now believes that the proposed project is compatible with
the immediate neighborhood and Height Variation Finding NO.8 can be made.
Privacy Impacts
In response to concerns expressed by Staff and the Planning Commission regarding Height
Variation Finding No.9,which requires that the proposed project not create privacy impacts to
neighboring properties,the applicant has redesigned the project to mitigate privacy impacts.The
applicant has set two of the rear fagade windows,closest to the east and west sides of the
residence,in by 1'_6"from the main rear second story fagade.By setting the rear windows in by
1'-6",Staff believes that the proposed project will not longer cause an unreasonable privacy
impact to the neighbors to the east and west.This is because only a small portion of the
neighbors'useable rear yards will be able to be viewed from these second story windows.
Furthermore,the applicant has eliminated windows from the east side of the residence and
provided one opaque glass window along the west side of the second story.As such,Staff now
believes that the proposed project would no longer result in an unreasonable infringement of
privacy of the abutting residences,therefore,Height Variation Finding NO.9 can now be made.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Potential View impact from 6517 Certa.Drive
After the February 8,2011 Planning Commission Staff Report was prepared,the homeowners of
6517 Certa Drive submitted a photograph which they believed showed that the proposed project
would impair a view from the viewing area of their home.Since Staff was not able to confirm the
view impairment prior to the February 8,2011 Planning Commission meeting,the Planning
Commission directed Staff to visit the property and confirm whether the proposed project would
create significant view impairment from the viewing area.After visiting the property,Staff was
able to determine that the proposed addition does not cause significant view impairment from
the viewing area of 6517 Certa.This view analysis was conducted of the revised project
silhouette from an area just outside of the dining room sliding window,which is the only window
with a potential view of the ocean in a north-westerly direction.The ocean was not visible from
this area at all.As such,Staff believes that there is no significant view impairment caused by the
proposed addition to the property owners of 6517 Certa.
Permit Streamlining Act
The original decision deadline for the proposed project was February 14,2011.The property
owner verbally agreed to a 90-day extension at the February 8,2011 Planning Commission
meeting,making the new decision deadline May 15,2011.
ATTACHMENTS 2-78
P.C.Staff Report (Case No.ZON201 0-00331)
April 12,2011
Page 4
CONCLUSION
Based on the original project analysis presented in the February 8,2011 Planning Commission
Staff Report (attached)together with the revised project presented by the Applicant,Staff now
concludes that all the required findings can be adopted to conditionally approve the Height
Variation and Site Plan Review application for the construction of a 131 square foot first floor
addition and a 1,250 square foot second story addition.As such,Staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution,thereby approving,with conditions,the
Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON201 0-00331).
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternative is available for the Planning Commission to consider:
1)Deny,without prejudice,the Height Variation and Site Plan Review and direct Staff to
return to the following meeting with the appropriate resolution.
2)Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project,provide Staff and/or the applicant
with direction in modifying the project,and continue the public hearing to a date certain.
Attachments:
P.C.Resolution No.2011-_(Approval)
Letter from the Applicant (Mr.Magalniq)
P.C.Staff Report February 8,2011
P.C.Staff Report March 22,2011 with attachments
P.C.Staff Report April 12,2011
Late Correspondence
Project Plans
ATTACHMENTS 2-79
P.C.Draft Resolution No.2011-
tA~P(o\(~f)
ATTACHMENTS 2-80
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2011·
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING,A
HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW PERMIT
(PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2010.00331)TO CONSTRUCT A 131
SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY ADDITION AND A 1,250
SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION AT THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 6530 LA GARITA.
WHEREAS,on September 20,2010,the property owners,Mr.and Mrs.Magalnic,submitted
a Height Variation and Site Plan Review Permit application to the Community Development
Department for review and processing requesting approval to construct a 131 square foot first-floor
addition and a 1,250 square foot second story addition.On September 29,2010,Staff completed
the initial review of the application,at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to
missing information on the project plans;and,
WHEREAS,after the submittal of multiple revisions to the project,Staff deemed the
application complete on December 16,2010;and,
WHEREAS,on January 3,2011,Staff mailed notices to 107 property owners within a 500-
foot radius from the SUbject property,providing a 30-day time period for the submittal of comments
and concerns.In addition,a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on January 6,2011;
and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,California Code
of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government
Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),Staff found no evidence
that the approval of the requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review applications would have a
significant effect on the environment and,therefore,the proposed project has been found to be
categorically exempt (Section 15303(e )(2»;and,
WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on February 8,
2011,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence;and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 22,2011,April
12,2011 and April 26,2011.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The Height Variation is warranted since the applicant has complied with the
Early Neighbor Consultation process established by the City by obtaining signatures from a
minimum of 70%(72%obtained)of the property owners within a 100 foot radius and the signatures
from a minimum of 25%(29%obtained)of the property owners within a 500 foot radius.
Section 2:The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story residence
which exceeds sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks,
ATTACHMENTS 2-81
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 due to the
topography in the area and the location of the subject property.
Section 3:The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that
exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory.The subject property is
located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood,on an existing pad lot and
does not overlook any other single-family residences.The residence is not located on a ridge or a
promontory,as defined in the Municipal Code.
Section 4:The Height Variation is warranted because the portions ofthe new residence
which exceed sixteen feet in height,when considered exclusive of existing foliage,do not
significantly impair views of any City-protected views such as the Pacific Ocean,coastline views,
distant mountain views or distant city light views from the viewing area of another parcel due to the
location of the proposed residence,orientation of the neighboring homes and topography in the
surrounding neighborhood.
Section 5:The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed project that is above
16'-0"in height is designed in a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view.
Specifically,the properties located at 28070 and 28063 Santona incurred view impairment as a
result of the proposed addition,albeit not significant.The applicant redesigned the project by
reducing the overall height from 25'-0"to 21'-0"to further reduce the view impairment caused by the
project.
Section 6:The Height Variation is warranted because no significant cumulative view
impairment would be caused by granting the application.More specifically,Staff assessed the
amount of cumulative view impairment that would be caused to the property and other neighboring
properties if a similar addition,such as the proposed project,were constructed on the following
adjacent properties:6538 La Garita,6529 La Garita,6525 La Garita and 28073 Acana.Including the
subject project site,only two (2)of the five (5)homes would impair a small portion of the entire
ocean view if a similar addition were constructed at the other sites,which would not be considered
significant.
Section 7:The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition complies with all
other Code requirements,including the RS-4 zoning district development standards with respect to
lot coverage and setbacks,and the off-street parking requirements for single-family residences.
Furthermore,due to the fact that the applicant is not proposing to demolish more than 50%of the
existing interior and exterior walls,the existing 14'-8"front yard setback may be maintained.
Section 8:The Height Variation is warranted because,as redesigned,the proposed
fayade treatments,structure height,open space between structures,roof design,and appearance of
bulk and mass of the second story is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.More
specifically,the applicant has reduced the square footage of the structure and provided a numberof
setbacks along the second story fayade to provide articulation from all sides of the structure,thereby
increasing the open space between structures and reducing the appearance of bulk and mass.
Section 9:The Height Variation is warranted because the proposed structure that is
above 16'-0"in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the
P.C.Resolution No.2011-
Page 2 of 6
ATTACHMENTS 2-82
occupants of abutting residences to the east and west due to the fact that windows are not proposed
along the second story east facing fayade,the one window proposed along the west facing fayade,
will be opaque,and the positioning of the windows along the rear fayade do not cause privacy
infringement.More specifically,the rear windows are setback 1'-6"from the rear fayade,thereby
reducing the potential privacy impacts to the neighbor.
Section 10:The requested Site Plan Review application for 131 square feet meets the
appropriate development code standards related to lot coverage,building height and setbacks for
the RS-2 zoning district.
Section 11:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1 )(g)of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code,any such appeal must be filed with the City,in writing,setting forth
the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant,and accompanied by
the appropriate appeal fee,no later than fifteen (15)days following April 26,2011,the date of the
Planning Commission's final action.
Section 12: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 approve,with conditions,a Height Variation and Site Plan Review
application (Planning Case No.ZON201 0-00331 )for the construction of a 131 square foot first floor
addition and a 1,250 square foot second floor addition,located at 6530 La Garita Drive,SUbject to
the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit 'A'.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April 2011,by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSSALS:
ABSENT:
David L.Tomblin
Chairman
Joel Rojas,AICP
Community Development Director
P.C.Resolution No.2011-
Page 3 of 6
ATTACHMENTS 2-83
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO.ZON201 0-00331
(Magalnic,6530 La Garita)
General Conditions:
1.Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check,the applicant and the
property owner shall submit to the City a statement,in writing,that they have read,
understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below..Failure to provide said
written statement within ninety (90)days following the date of this approval shall render this
approval null and void.
2.Prior to any construction work in the Public Right-of-Way,the applicant shall obtain an
encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works for any curb cuts,dumpsters in the
street or any other temporary or permanent improvements within the public rights-of-way.
3.Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate
zoning regulations,or any Federal,State,County and/or City laws and regulations.Unless
otherwise expressly specified,all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code shall apply.
4.The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in
these conditions of approval or,if not addressed herein,shall conform to the residential
development standards of the City's Municipal Code,including but not limited to height,
setback and lot coverage standards.
5.Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may 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.
6.If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved
project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the
City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of the Notice of Decision,
approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless,prior to expiration,a
written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Director and
approved by the Director.
7.In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department,the stricter standard shall
apply.
8.Unless otherwise designated in these conditions,all construction shall be completed in
substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective
date of the Notice of Decision.
9.The construction site and adjacent pUblic and private properties and streets shall be kept
free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for
immediate construction purposes.Such excess material may include,but not be limited to:
P.C.Resolution No.2011-
Page 4 of 6
ATTACHMENTS 2-84
the accumulation of debris,garbage,lumber,scrap metal,concrete asphalt,piles of earth,
salvage materials,abandoned or discarded furniture,appliances or other household fixtures.
10.Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,Monday through
Saturday,with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays
specified in Section 17.96.920 ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.Trucks shall
not park,queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before
7:00 AM,Monday through Saturday,in accordance with the permitted hours of construction
stated in this condition.
11.Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications,the approved project shall
maintain a maximum of 50%lot coverage (39%proposed)and the following setbacks from
the applicable property lines:
Front
East Side
WestSide
Rear
20 feet (14'-8"existing,no change)
5'_0"feet (8'-6"existing,no change)
5'-0"feet (7'_0"existing,no change)
15 feet (36'-7"existing,no change)
12.Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed
50%.
13.A minimum 2-car garage shall be provided,with each required parking space being
individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9 feet in width
and 20 feet in depth,with a minimum of 7 feet of vertical clearance.
14.Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.No outdoor lighting is permitted where the
light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or
properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located.
15.All landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques,
either through screening and/or watering.
16.All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure,safe,neat and orderly manner.
Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the
City's Building Official.Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's
Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the
surrounding property owners.
17.All applicable permits required by the Building and Safety Division shall be obtained by the
applicant prior to the commencement of construction.
Height Variation Conditions:
18.This approval is for the construction of a 131 square foot first floor addition and a 1,250
square foot second floor to the existing single-story residence.Upon completion of the
proposed addition,the square footage of the residence would be 3,280 square feet,
including the garage.
P.C.Resolution No.2011-
Page 5 of 6
ATTACHMENTS 2-85
19.The new residence shall maintain a maximum height of 21'-0"I as measured from the lowest
finished grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab to the highest ridgeline of the new
second floor addition.BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED.A LICENSED
CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION.
CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ROOF FRAMING/SHEETING INSPECTION.
21.Other than the required spark arrestors,there shall not be any decorative/architectural
features on the tops of the chimneys.Since a spark arrestor is required for every chimney,
the spark arrestor shall be considered part of the chimney.Therefore,the proposed
chimneys shall not be any higher than the minimum height required by the Uniform Building
Code.The spark arrestors on the chimneys shall be the shortest spark arrestor required by
the manufacturers specifications for the type of fireplace installed.
22.The east side of the second story shall not have windows.
23.The one (1)window that is proposed along the west side of the second story shall be
opaque.
24.The second story windows located at the rear of the residence shall be set in 1'-6"from the
rear fayade to mitigate privacy impacts to the neighbors to the east and west.The center
window is not required to be set in 1'-6",but may be flush with the rear fayade.
25.The front of the second story fayade shall be setback a minimum of 33'-0"to be in line with
the proposed first floor addition.
P.C.Resolution No.2011-
Page 6 of6
ATTACHMENTS 2-86
Letter from the Applicant
(Mr.Magalnic)
ATTACHMENTS 2-87
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Leza,
Yitzie Magalnic [chabadpv@gmail.com]
Monday,April 18,2011 8:37 AM
lezam@rpv.com;Manoukian,Salpi
Hearing
As I mentioned to you in our phone conversation that due to the observance of the last day of passover my wife
and I won't be able to attend the hearing on April 26,2011.I spoke to salpi and we feel she could adequately
represent us at the hearing.
I want to thank you for taking the time to help clarify many of the issues which were completely new to me.I
also appreciate the patience you have shown me throughout the process.
There are few issues I would like to bring to your attention as well as to the planning commission.I hope you
can either read this letter at the hearing on my behalf or add it to the file for the commission to see.
Since I submitted my request to get a permit for our second story the only neighbours who were willing to
discuss the project with us were the Haydens.Although we have our differences they had the decency to take the
time to discuss the project with us,and I want to thank them for that.On the other hand when I attempted to
engage Mr.Watson in a conversation about the project he simply refused to discuss it and accused me of
making a revolution in the community.
Mr.Watson In his letter resorts to out right lies and exaggerations about our behaviour as neighbours in order to
prevent us from doing what is our American right to expand our home.We are a peaceful family who gets along
with all our neighbours.I hold no grudges against him and I welcome him to be a part of this project.
Unfortunately a few neighbours who oppose this project created hysteria and panic in our community.They
claim that we are expanding our home so that we can have religious services and use it as an extension to our
synagogue.Some actually expressed this concern in their letters calling our addition for "commercial purposes"
or to be used for our "Social Business".In fact my neighbour Lawrence and Christine Young on 6518 La Garita
told me they oppose the project because they are concerned that we are going to conduct religious services in
our home.This type of hysteria has scared some of our neighbours who were originally in support of our
project to write letters in opposition.
These accusations are ridicules,baseless and unfounded.I want to be very clear about our intentions for this
project.The purpose of our addition is for residential purposes only.We conduct our religious services in a
separate commercial location.We have private lives and our home is to serve that purpose only.
Also they have managed to convince some neighbours that the value of their homes will decline if we build a
second story.I know this argument has no bearing on the commissions decision but I believe its important that
the commission understands the source of some of the opposition to our project.It does not take any great real
estate expertise to know that if a home is upgraded on your block the value of your home will increase.
We worked very closely with Leza to make sure this project is compatible with the neighbourhood.Based on the
city's approval of other homes in the vicinity ours has more setbacks and articulation then any other homes in
the neighbourhood,and more importantly the second floor windows in the back of the house are set back to
protect the privacy of our neighbours.
1
ATTACHMENTS 2-88
We are very proud to be twenty year residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.I respectfully ask the planing
commission to approve this project as it will be the pride and joy for all ofthe community.
Isaac &Rachel Magalnic
310-561-4300
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
2
ATTACHMENTS 2-89
P.C.Staff Report February 8,2011
ATTACHMENTS 2-90
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STAFF
REPORT
APPLICANT:SM CONSULTANTS INC.
LANDOWNER:MR.&MRS.MAGALNIC
STAFF COORDINATO~ZA MIKHAIL,
ASSOCIATE PLANNER"\.:l..."-
6530 LA GARITA DR.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
COMMUNITY~ELOPMENT
DIRECTOR Ui---
FEBRUARY 8,2011
CASE NO.ZON2010-00331
(HEIGHT VARIATION &
SITE PLAN REVIEW)
TO:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
DATE:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
THOMAS GUIDE MAP COORDINATES:792-H7
REQUESTED ACTION:A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 131 SQUARE FOOT FIRST FLOOR ADDITION
AND 1,467 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO THE EXISTING
1,807 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE (GARAGE INCLUDED).
THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE RESIDENCE WILL MEASURE 25'-0"AS
MEASURED FROM THE HIGHEST RIDGELINE TO THE LOWEST FINISHED
GRADE ADACENT TO THE FOUNDATION/SLAB.
RECOMMENDATION:ADOPT P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2011-_,THEREBY DENYING THE HEIGHT
VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.ZON2010-00331).
REFERENCES:
ZONING:RS-4
LAND USE:SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
CODE SECTIONS:17.02,17.48,17.64,17.72,AND 17.76.040
ATTACHMENTS 2-91
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 2
GENERAL PLAN:RESIDENTIAL,2-4 DUiACRE
TRAILS PLAN:NONE
SPECIFIC PLAN:NONE
CEQA STATUS:CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15303)
ACTION DEADLINE:FEBRUARY 14,2011
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WITHIN 500-FOOT NOTIFICATION RADIUS:NONE
BACKGROUND
On September 20,2010,the applicant submitted a Height Variation and Site Plan Review
application to the Community Development Department for review and processing.The
applicant requested approval to construct a 131 square foot first floor addition and a 1,467
square foot second floor addition.
On September 29,2010,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 October 7,2010 and November 18,2010.
Subsequently,Staff deemed the application complete on December 16,2010.
On January 3,2011,Staff mailed notices to 107 property owners within a 500-foot radius
from the subject property,providing a 30-day time period for the submittal of comments
and concerns.In addition,a Public'Notice was published in the Peninsula News on
January 6,2011.Staff received twelve comment letters 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 7,039 square foot lot located on the south side of La Garita Drive,west
of Lomo Drive and east of Ella Road,within the RS-2 zoning district (single-family
residential).The subject lot is considered a pad lot (less than 5%slope)with a rear yard
slope that descends approximately 10 feet to the rear property line.
The subject property is currently improved with a 1,807 square foot single-story residence
with an indirect access garage.The existing residence has a legal,non-conforming 14'-8"
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 existing lot coverage encompasses
1,807 square feet dedicated toward the building footprint,54 square feet dedicated toward
the covered patio and 820 square feet dedicated toward the driveway.Combined,the total
existing lot coverage is 2,681 square feet,or 38%of the 7,039 square foot lot.
ATTACHMENTS 2-92
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct 131 square feet of new habitable area to the front
of the existing residence and a new 1,467 square foot second story to the existing single-
story residence.When combined,the residence footprint (1,938 square feet),covered
porches (50 square feet)and driveway (790 square feet)would yield a total lot coverage of
2,778 square feet,or 39%of the 7,039 square foot lot.It is important to note that the
existing residence has a legal,non-conforming 14'-8"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:
Lot Size
Structure Size
Setbacks
Front:1St floor
Side (east)
Side (west)
Rear
Lot Coverage (%)
Enclosed Parking
Structure Height -Pad
Lot
9()i;l·E;E;?<I~.ilJ~c;
REQOIREMENT <RESIDENCE
8,000 s.f.7,039 s.f.
N/A 1,807 s.f.
20'-0"14'-8"
5'-0"8'-6"
5'-0"7'-0"
15'-0"36'-7"
50%38%
2 spaces 2 spaces
NEW'f'{ESIDENCE
No change
3,125 s.f.
No change
No change
No change
No change
39%
2 spaces
Highest elevation of 16'
existing building pad
covered by structure to
highest ridge of
building.
Lowest grade adjacent 20'
to the bUilding
foundation/slab.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Unknown -
under 16'-0"
Unknown -
under 16'-0"
N/A
25'-0"
Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),under Article 19,Section
ATTACHMENTS 2-93
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 4
15301(e)(1)(additions)of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA.
Specifically,the project includes a 131 square foot first floor addition and 1,407 square foot
second story 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 more than 75%ofthe
first floor will be covered by the second floor.As the proposed second-story addition will
cover 81 %of the existing single-story residence,Planning Commission review of the
application is required.
Municipal Code Section No.17.02.040(C)(1)(e)sets forth the findings required in order for
the Planning Commission to approve a Height Variation.A discussion of these findings (in
bold type)follows:
1.The applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process
established by the city.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code requires the applicant to take all
necessary steps to consult with the property owners within 500 feet of the project site.
The City has established the following guidelines to conform with this requirement,
"[applicant must obtain]the signatures of at least 60%of the landowners within 500
feet;or 70%of the landowners within 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 11 properties within 100 feet and 107
parcels within 500 feet of the site.The applicant obtained 8 signatures from properties
within 100 feet (72%)and 32 signatures from properties within 500 feet (29%).As such,
the applicant has met the requirement to notify a minimum of 25%of the landowners
within 100 feet and 70%of the landowners within 500 feet,thereby complying with the
early notification consultation process.Thus,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
ATTACHMENTS 2-94
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 5
(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.
The only protected view that could be available to the homes in the surrounding
neighborhood is a "far view"of the Pacific Ocean."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.Based on a site analysis ofthe surrounding neighborhood,Staff believes
that due to the location of the proposed residence,the orientation of neighboring homes
and topography of the neighborhood,the proposed second story addition would not
cause a view impairment from a majority of the surrounding homes.
On June 15,2005,the Director approved City Tree Review Permit (CTRP #206)that
involved the following applicant properties:28063 Santoma (Cogan family),28057
Santoma (Yongsun family)and 28070 Santoma (Barlock family).These properties are
located east of the subject project,approximately 25 feet higher in elevation and have a
very narrow view of the Pacific Ocean in a westward direction.Due to the topography of
the neighborhood,the view appears a narrow band of ocean that appears above the
roof tops of the homes near the intersection of Ella Road and La Garita.Although Staff
has not received any public comments from these neighbors (as of the preparation of
this report),Staff visited the properties on February 1,1011 and was only able to
conduct a view analysis from 28063 Santoma and 28070 Santoma.After visiting 28063
Santoma,although it was difficult to see the ocean beyond all the existing foliage that
obstructs the ocean view,Staff found that a small portion of the peak of the proposed
ATTACHMENTS 2-95
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 6
second story impairs a small portion of the ocean view as seen from the viewing area
(downstairs living room).As this finding requires a view analysis to be conducted
irrespective of existing foliage,Staff is of the opinion that the view impairment would be
nominal compared to the entire ocean view as only a small peak would extend into the
view frame.Staff also conducted a similar view analysis from the viewing area (dining
room and kitchen)of 28070 Santoma.Views of the ocean from this property were also
difficult to see due to the existing foliage that obstructs the ocean views;however,
irrespective of existing foliage,the top 4 feet of the proposed 25'-0"tall addition would
impair a very small portion of the entire ocean view.It is important to note,although
Staff did not receive any public comments from the property owner of 28057 Santona,
Staff attempted to visit the property to assess view impairment,but was unsuccessfully
in gaining access to the rear yard of this property.As such,although 28063 and 28070
Santona would incur view impairment,the impairment is not considered significant
because only a small portion of the addition would impair a small portion of the ocean
view as seen from the viewing properties ofthese homes.Therefore this finding can be
made.
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 above,while Staff believes that the project would cause view impairment to
28063 and 28070 Santona,Staff does not believe that the view impairment is
significant because only a small portion of the addition would impair a small portion of
the ocean view.However due to the view impairment that does result,Staff must
assess if the project has been designed in such a manner as to reasonably minimize
the impairment of view.As currently designed,the proposed residence would reach a
maximum height of 25'-0"with a 6:12 roof pitch and 9-foot ceiling heights.Staff is of the
opinion that the view impairment to the properties along Santona would be eliminated if
the overall height of the structure were reduced by 4 feet.This can be accomplished by
reducing the roof pitch from 6:12 to 3:12 and reducing the height of the ceilings from 9
feet to 8 feet.During a site visit to 28070 Santoma,the homeowners (Barlock's)agreed
that a reduction of the roof height by 4 feet would significantly reduce their concerns
with the height of the second story addition and would protect their limited view of the
Pacific Ocean.This alternative as also discussed with the architect who noted that a
reduction in height by 4'-0"is attainable.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 impairmentshall 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
ATTACHMENTS 2-96
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 7
that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new
structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height.
As explained in the previous finding (#4),Staff concluded that portions ofthe proposed
project would result in view impacts,although not significant view impacts,to the limited
Pacific Ocean view as seen the viewing area of 28070 Santoma and 28063 Santona.In
order to address this finding,Staff must assess the amount of cumulative view
impairment that would be caused to this property and other neighboring properties if a
similar addition over 16'-0",such as the proposed project,was also constructed on
properties close to the subject project.According the City's Height Variation Guidelines,
in making this assessment,Staff's evaluation will usually not extend beyond 3 or 4
parcels "adjacent"to the subject property.The four properties that are "adjacent"to the
applicant,which are in the view frame for the three homes noted above,are:6538 La
Garita,6529 La Garita,6525 Certa and 28073 Acana.
After reviewing photographs taken by Staff,and considering similar additions on the
properties listed above that are adjacent to the project,it appears that potential
additions on only two of the five homes would encroach into the narrow band of ocean
view as seen from the viewing area of 28070 and 28063 Santona.Although these
homes would incur slightly more view impairment from this cumulative scenario than
what results from solely the applicant's project,Staff does not believe the cumulative
view impairment is considered significant because only a relatively small portion of the
entire view would be impacted.As such,this finding can be made.
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'-8").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 (1 ,938 square feet),covered porches (50 square feet)and driveway
(790 square feet).This would yield a total of 3,2,778 square feet,or 39%of the 7,039
square foot lot,which meets the 50%lot coverage limit in the RS-4 zoning district.As
such,this finding can be made.
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.
ATTACHMENTS 2-97
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 8
(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 compatibil!ty.
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
6512 La Garita 7,824 1,682 1
6518 La Garita 7,632 1,582 1
6524 La Garita 7,260 1,582 1
6538 La Garita 7,216 2,062 1
6544 La Garita 8,082 1,837 1
28103 Lomo 7,091 1,582 1
28047 Lomo 7,615 1,833 1
28074 Acana 7,477 1,833 1
28073 Acana 7,519 1,942 1
28067 Acana 7,558 2,066 1
28064 Acana 7,003 1,582 1
6525 Certa 7327 2,154 1
6531 Certa 6,988 1,694 1
28084 Ella 7,307 2,056 1
28081 Ella 11,061 1,833 1
28087 Ella 12,367 2,519 1
28103 Ella 11,728 3,157 1
28109 Ella 11,152 2,116 1
28070 Ella 7,280 3,497*2
28076 Ella 7,151 1,942 1
Avera e 8,232 2,028 nfa
6530 La Garita 7,039 1,807 1
ATTACHMENTS 2-98
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 9
i I I 3,125 I 2 I
The square footage for this property was obtained from a Planning Entitlement received in 1989 for a second story addition.
Staff was not able to find a Building Permit for this addition;however the square footage was also verified with the Assessor's
Office.
As noted in the table above,the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a majority of
single-story homes.The homes range in size from 1,582 square feet to 3,497 square
feet.The average home size for all of the 20 closest homes is 2,028 square feet.The
proposed residence will yield a 3,125 square foot structure,which is less than the two
largest homes in the neighborhood.As such,Staff is of the opinion the size of the
proposed residence is within the range of structure sizes found within the immediate
neighborhood.As such,the proposed two-story residence would not create an
anomaly,in terms of size,and would thereby be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
It is important to note that the applicant originally proposed a 3,528 square foot
residence at the start of the planning process.Staff relayed concerns with the overall
structure size and compatibility of the second story addition,and recommended that the
applicant consider reducing the square footage of the residence and further articulating
the appearance of the structure.After meeting with the applicant and architect on
multiple occasions,the applicant submitted a second proposal with a 3,518 square foot
residence and then a third (and final)proposal with a total of 3,125 square feet.They
also added additional articulation to the facades (discussed below).
(2)Architectural styles,including fac;ade treatments,structure height,open
space between structures,roof design,the apparent bulk or mass of the
structure,number of stori~s,and building materials.
The surrounding neighborhood is comprised of an eclectic sense of architectural styles
with varying fagade treatments along the exterior walls ranging from stucco finishes and
wood siding to brick or stone facades.The majority of the residences in the immediate
neighborhood are developed as average single-story residences with either a direct-
access or indirect access garage.The applicant is proposing a two-story residence with
a smooth stucco finish with black window trim accents and tile roof materials.Although
two-story residences are not commonly found 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 by providing undulating facades and additional second-story setbacks as seen
from the front and sides of the residence.Staff is of the opinion that the proposed
design offers relief from some of the potential impacts that could be caused by
introducing a two-story residence to a neighborhood of mostly single-story homes.The
applicant has also utilized a hipped roof across the entire structure to reduce the
appearance of mass.In addition,a portion of the second story is setback 18'-0"from
the front of the garage and approximately 4'-0"from the front of the first floor facade
line.
Although the applicant has provided articulation and setbacks across the second story
footprint,the rear portion of the second story continues to appear bulky and massive as
ATTACHMENTS 2-99
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 10
seen from the front and rear yards of the neighboring properties just t::ast and west of
the subject property.These residences are developed with residences that meet the
required side yard setbacks,but are close to 5'-0".The rear portion of the proposed
second story footprint follows the first floor footprint with side yard setbacks of 7'_0"and
8'-6",thereby increasing the apparent bulk and mass of the structure.Staff is of the
opinion that further articulation and setbacks to the second floor footprint would
potentially minimize the apparent bulk and mass of the proposed structure as seen
from the street and neighboring properties.As such,as currently designed,this portion
of finding #(8)(2)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.As stated above,this 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.Staff was unable to compare the setbacks of
the second floor to other residences within the 20 closest as a majority of them are
single-story.The legal,non-conforming front yard setback is permitted to remain as
noted in the Site Description section of this report.Ultimately,the proposed setbacks
are consistent with other setbacks in the immediate neighborhood.
Based on the analysis above,it is staff's opinion that the proposed usca/e,
architectural style 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 as
well as the neighboring properties to the east and west.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 proposed
second story would be located in a neighborhood with an average lot size of 8,232
square feet where a majority of the lots have a lot coverage near 40%-45%.
Additionally,the proposed second story would be located on a property that is
approximately 10-15 feet below the properties located along the north side of Certa (to
the rear of the subject property).Due to the average lot sizes,typical lot coverage
where structures are built at or near a 5'-0"side yard setback,and topography,privacy
impacts are incurred by the property owners directly abutting the subject property.More
specifically,the windows along the south fagade (rear fagade)of Bedroom #1 would
create a privacy impact into the east neighbor's rear yard.The window along the rear
ATTACHMENTS 2-100
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 11
fagade and west side fagade of the Master Bedroom would create a slight privacy
impact to the property located to the west of the subject property.As currently
designed,Staff would not be able to support the project;however,if the windows were
designed to be clerestory or opaque,the privacy impacts to these properties would be
reduced to a less than significant level.Staff also visited 6531 Certa to view privacy
concerns relayed by the homeowner.Ultimately,Staff concluded that the proposed
addition would not create an unreasonable infringement of privacy to this property due
to the fact that existing foliage obstructed much of the view into the rear yard.As such,
as currently designed,Staff cannot support this finding.
Site Plan Review
As the applicant is proposing to construct 131 square feet to the first floor footprint,outside
of the second floor footprint,a Site Plan Review is required.The proposed first floor
additions meet the required setbacks,building heights and lot coverage for the RS-2
zoning district.As the proposed first floor additions meet the development code standards,
the Site Plan Review permit (first floor addition)can be 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.Staff conducted a second field visit on February 1,2011 to
28070 Santona and 28063 Santona in response to a conversation with a close-by
neighbor.After a site visit,Staff determined that the tree within the subject rear yard does
not currently impair the limited ocean views from these properties or other properties due to
the existence of multiple larger trees that potentially impair the limited ocean view from the
properties located along Santona.As such,no trees significantly impair a view from the
viewing area of a neighboring property.
Public Notice
As a result of the public notice,Staff received the attached correspondence from 1)Lindley
Ruddick,property owner of 28042 Acana Road,2)Alan Valukonis,property owner at
28111 Lomo Drive,3)Paul Czaplicki,property owner of 6537 Certa,4)Mr.and Mrs.
Yocum,property owners of 28074 Acana,5)Mr.and Mrs.Wantanabe,property owners of
6531 Certa,6)The Watsons,property owners of 6524 La Garia,7)Mr.and Mrs.
Bohannon,property owners of28103 Lomo Drive,8)Richard E.Ferguson,property owner
at 28047 Lomo Drive,9) Mr.and Mrs.Yefsky,property owners of 28056 Ella Road,10)Mr.
and Mrs.Hayden,property owners of 6538 La Garita,11)Mr.Barlock,property owner of
28070 Santona Drive,and Jesse 1m,property owner of 28051 Acana.
The main concerns raised in the comment letters had to do with a lack of compatibility of
the second story (bulk,mass and height),a lack of adequate second story setbacks,view
impairment and privacy impacts.Two additional issues related to the use of the property
and a decrease in property values were also conveyed in two (2)of the eleven (11)letters
ATTACHMENTS 2-101
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 12
received.
As noted in the body of this report,it is Staff's opinion that the project as currently designed
does create bulk and mass impacts as seen from the street and the abutting neighbors.
Additionally,Staff noted concerns with the second story footprint and the need for
additional setbacks to the second floor.As currently designed,Staff is not able to support
the proposed project.
As further noted in the body of this report,staff also concluded that the project would
create privacy impacts to the neighboring properties to the east and west (6538 La Garita
6524 La Garita)due to the location and types of windows being proposed.The rear yards
of these two properties would be easily visible from the windows of the current design.
Additionally,the proposed project,at a maximum height of 25 feet,would impair the view
from the established viewing area of 28070 and 28063 Santona Drive.Although Staff
determined that the view impairment was not significant,further modifications to the design
and height of the structure could further reduce the impairment.As such,Staffwould agree
that the proposed project,as currently designed,would create privacy and view impacts to
the abovementioned neighbors.
With regard to property values,the City does not monitor or evaluate property values for
analysis when a homeowner requests a development permit.With respect to the use of the
property,one letter relayed concerns with the commercial use of the property as a result of
the proposed addition.The property is zoned for single-family residential. Although there
are other permitted uses within this zoning district,a commercial use is not permitted.
Furthermore,any other use outside of what is permitted under Section 17.02.020,would
not be permissible.In some cases,sp.ecific uses determined under Section 17.02.025,may
be obtained through the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit.All other uses
that are not identified in these two sections are strictly prohibited by the Development
Code.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis,Staff concludes that the required findings for the Height
Variation cannot be made.More specifically,Staff is concluding that the proposed project,
as currently designed,is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,creates
privacy impacts to the east and west abutting neighbor and is not designed to minimize
view impairment incurred by the properties along Santona.As such,Staff is recommending
that the Planning Commission deny,without prejUdice,the Height Variation and Site Plan
Review as currently designed (Case No.ZON2010-00331).
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation,the following alternatives are available for the
Planning Commission to act on:
1.Approve the Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON201 0-00331),as
submitted.
ATTACHMENTS 2-102
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 13
2.Deny,with prejudice,the Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No.
ZON201 0-00331).
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.2011-
Letter from the Applicant
Public Correspondence
Project plans
ATTACHMENTS 2-103
Draft P.C.Resolution No.2011-
ATTACHMENTS 2-104
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2011-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING,WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
A HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW PERMIT
(PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2010-00331)TO CONSTRUCT A 131
SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY ADDITION AND A 1,467
SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION AT THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 6530 LA GARITA.
WHEREAS,on September 20,2010,the property owners,Mr.and Mrs.Magalnic,submitted
a Height Variation and Site Plan Review Permit application to the Community Development
Department for review and processing requesting approval to construct a 131 square foot first-floor
addition and a 1,467 square foot second story addition.On September 29,2010,Staff completed
the initial review of the application,at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to
missing information on the project plans;and,
WHEREAS,after the submittal of multiple revisions to the project,Staff deemed the
application complete on December 16,2010;and,
WHEREAS,on January 3,2011,Staff mailed notices to 107 property owners within a 500-
foot radius from the subject property,providing a 30-day time period for the submittal of comments
and concerns.In addition,a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on January 6,2011;
and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Ac;t,Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,California Code
of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Goverrl!l1ent
Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),Staff found no evidence
that the approval of the requested Height'Variation and Site Plan Review applications would have a
significant effect on the environment and,therefore,the proposed project has been found to be
categorically exempt (Section 15303(e)(2»;and,
WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on February 8,
2011,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence;and,
NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process
established by the City by obtaining signatures from a minimum of 70%(72%obtained)of the
property owners within a 100 foot radius and the signatures from a minimum of 25%(29%obtained)
of the property owners within a 500 foot radius.
Section 2:The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story residence
which 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 due to the
topography in the area and the location of the subject property.
ATTACHMENTS 2-105
Section 3:The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that
exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory.The subject property is
located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood,on an existing pad lot and
does not overlook any other single-family residences.The residence is not located on a ridge or a
promontory,as defined in the Municipal Code.
Section 4:The Height Variation is warranted because the portions of the new residence
which exceed sixteen feet in height,when considered exclusive of existing foliage,do not
significantly impair views of any City-protected views such as the Pacific Ocean,coastline views,
distant mountain views or distant city light views from the viewing area of another parcel due to the
location of the proposed residence,orientation of the neighboring homes and topography in the
surrounding neighborhood.
Section 5:The Height Variation is not warranted because the proposed project that is
above 16'-0"in height is not designed in a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a
view.Specifically,the properties located at 28070 and 28063 Santona incurred view impairment as
a result of the proposed addition,albeit not significant.Although the impairment is not significant,the
proposed design,with a 25'-0"tall structure,could be reduced in height to eliminate the view
impairment from these properties.
Section 6:The Height Variation is warranted because no significant cumulative view
impairment would be caused by granting the application.More specifically,Staff assessed the
amount of cumulative view impairment that would be caused to the property and other neighboring
properties if a similar addition,such as the proposed project,were constructed on the following
adjacent properties:6538 La Garita,6529 La Garita,6525 La Garita and 28073 Acana.Including the
subject project site,only two (2)of the five (5)homes would impair a small portion of the entire
ocean view if a similar addition were constructed at the other sites,which would not be considered
significant.
Section 7:The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition complies with all
other Code requirements,including the RS-4 zoning district development standards with respect to
lot coverage and setbacks,and the off-street parking requirements for single-family residences.
Furthermore,due to the fact that the applicant is not proposing to demolish more than 50%of the
existing interior and exterior walls,the existing 14'-8"front yard setback may be maintained.
Section 8:The Height Variation is not warranted because the proposed fayade
treatments,structure height,open space between structures,roof design,and appearance of bulk
and mass of the second story are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.More
specifically,the rear portion of the second story footprint follows the building line fayade of the first
floor thereby overwhelming the neighboring properties to the east and west and creating bulk and
mass issues.The second story addition also creates bulk and mass issues as seen from the street
due to the existing 5'-0"to 7'-0"side yard setbacks found throughout the neighborhood.
Furthermore,second story footprints are not commonly found throughout the neighborhood and high
pitched roofs are not found in the immediate neighborhood.
Section 9:The Height Variation is not warranted because the proposed structure that is
above 16'-0"in height results in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of
abutting residences to the east and west due to the average lot sizes and existing small side yard
p.e.Resolution No.2011-
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENTS 2-106
setbacks.More specifically,the windows along the south,rear fagade (Bedroom #1)would create a
privacy impact into the east neighbor's rear yard.Additionally,the window along rear and west facing
facades of the master Bedroom would also create a slight privacy impact to the property located to
the west of the subject property.
Section 10:The requested Site Plan Review application for 131 square feet meets the
appropriate development code standards related to lot coverage,building height and setbacks for
the RS-2 zoning district.
Section 11:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1)(g)of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code,any such appeal must be filed with the City,in writing,setting forth
the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant,and accompanied by
the appropriate appeal fee,no later than fifteen (15)days following September 28,2010,the date of
the Planning Commission's final action.
Section 12:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included
in the Staff Report,Minutes and other records of proceedings,the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies,without prejudice,a Height Variation and Site Plan Review
application (Planning Case No.ZON201 0-00331)for the construction of a 131 square foot first floor
addition and a 1,467 square foot second floor addition,located at 6530 La Garita Drive.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 8th day of February 2011,by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSSALS:
ABSENT:
David L.Tomblin
Chairman
Joel Rojas,AICP
Community Development Director
P.C.Resolution No.2011-
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS 2-107
Letter from the Applicant
ATTACHMENTS 2-108
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Yitzie Magalnic [chabadpv@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,January 25,2011 8:22 PM
To:Leza Mikahil;Rochie Magalnic;Salpi Manoukian
Subject:Thanks for the Letter
Leza,
Thanks for faxing the letters.Just to give you a follow up.I met with both residents who wrote letters in
opposition to my proj ect.
First,I met with the Yefsky's at 28056 Ella rd.we had a very good discussion.it turns out that they
never saw the plans so they are not clear what the plan is.The main concern they have is that my home
will look like 28129 Ella Road.I explained to them that we are building a home that will be compatible
with the neighborhood and will blend in very well and will be the pride of our community.I asked the
yefsky's to please take the time to study our plans which were submitted to the city's
planing commission.
I then met with Louise Lalande at 28031 Acana rd.She is a delightful elderly lady.She lives mostly in
Mammoth (northern CA).She too did not see the plans.her concern is that I would set a precedence and
her neighbor facing the ocean might want to build a second story which would then block her view.in
principal she has no objection to my project.She told me she would go to the city office to review the
plans.
What I'm learning is that the few who are opposed to the project are not interested in compromising or
discussing the project.They don't want any <;hange made to the community including adding out on the
first floor.I'm happy to say that over 95%of the people I have spoken to have been very supportive and
they see this as an added value to the community.
Again thank you for encouraging me to discuss this project with my neighbors.if there is anyway you
could notify me of any new letters I would appreciated it.
Have a great day!
Isaac
Rabbi Yitzie Magalnic
Chabad of Palos Verdes
28041 Hawthorne blvd #202-203
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Office:310-544-5544
cell:310-561-4300
~ishPV.com
1/26/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-109
Correspondence Letters
ATTACHMENTS 2-110
Page 1 of2
Leza Mikhail
From:Lindley Ruddick [elruddick@cox.net]
Sent:Thursday,January 27,2011 3:14 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
SUbject:HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.ZON201 0-00331)
SUBJECT:HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.ZON2010-
00331 )
We are writing to ask that you recommend that the Planning Commission deny the
variance for this proposed project.It is our opinion that this proposal is not
compatible with the surrounding homes as it would present a visual image of a
large,bulky mass when viewed from the street.This is inconsistent with the nearby
residences.With the small side set backs of this property and the adjacent
properties,it is our opinion that this will result in an even more imposing
appearance.
We ask that you consider privacy issues that this towering structure will raise with
the adjacent properties on both sides and behind this proposed project.
We ask that you investigate potential view impairment from residences on Santona
Drive.A view restoration project in 1995 was requested by residents of this area
which resulted in the trimming of many trees on La Garita Drive,Acana Road and
Lomo Drive.These trees were trimmed by the City to a 16 foot height to restore
views based upon the view restoration ordinance.Some private property owners on
Lomo Drive were also required to reduce the heights of trees on their property.
This proposed structure with its height of 25 feet far exceeds the 16 foot height limit
that the trees were trimmed to in order to restore the views.We do not see why a
height variance should be granted for a permanent structure when green,
environmentally friendly trees were trimmed and will need to be trimmed in the
future.
We assume the staff will analyze the closest 20 homes for compatibility.This may
include some existing two story homes on Lomo Drive and Ella Road.It is our
understanding that with the exception of the residences at 28070 Ella Road and
28179 Ella Road,the two story homes on Ella Road and Lomo Drive were not a
part of the original development but were part of a later development.In the case of
28129 Ella Road,the Planning Commission turned down the application but upon
appeal to the City Council,the project was approved.The second story addition to
the house at 28070 Ella Road was completed in the early 1990's before the
neighborhood compatibility ordinance was approved by the voters of Rancho Palos
Verdes in 2003.That addition mayor may not have been approved under the new
ordinance.
We believe that most of us purchased our homes with full understanding of the
surrounding homes and had reasonable expectations that they would remain
compatible.We took into consideration the location of two story homes which we
1/28/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-111
Page 2 of2
felt were placed in appropriate locations by the original developers.We certainly
did not anticipate that we might become surrounded by towering structures of
steadily increasing size resulting in the "McMansionization"of our neignborhood
with the resulting reduction of privacy and increasing visual massiveness of the
structures.The Planning Commission has had much discussion concerning the
creeping mansionization of neighborhoods similar to ours.If approved,this project
would be an example of rapid mansionization which we do not desire.The
neighborhood compatibility ordinance was passed by the voters of Rancho Palos
Verdes to assure that this would not be the case.The residents of Rancho Palos
Verdes did not and do not wish to become another beach city with oversizes
houses crowded onto small lots.
Lindley &Sandra Ruddick
28042 Acana Road
1/28/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-112
In regards to the new construction at 6530 La Garita Drive (CASE NO.ZON2010-00331),I believe
the completed project would be both an out of character with the other residences in the
immediate area and an unreasonable infringement of privacy to my family.
The 25 foot height of the new structure is entirely out of character with the rest of the houses
in the block.The other homes in the block are all single story and,in my opinion,all are of
similar character to the original structures.Currently,no house looks "out of place"in either
size or style.The proposed home would be the tallest structure on the block.
My house is at 28111 Lomo Drive.The front of my house faces east while the rear faces west
toward the subject property.The block,in which both my property and the subject property is
included,is bordered by Lomo Drive at the east,La Garita Drive at the north,Certa Drive at the
west and Ella Drive at the west.It is a unique aspect of the placement of the houses in the block
that,with the exception of our immediate neighbor to my left (28123 Lomo Drive),only the
rooftops ofthe houses in the block are visible from my back yard looking west.This has
accorded us with a very pleasant scene when looking west with only trees,rooftops and the sky
above the horizon visible.Most importantly,there are no windows of houses visible from my
backyard.When completed,the subject property will be in clear view and the occupants will be
able to observe my backyard from either its east facing or,possibly,even its south facing
windows.
Sincerely,
Alan Valukonis
28111 Lomo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ATTACHMENTS 2-113
RECEIVED
JAN 27 2011
PlANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Jan.26,11
28103 Lomo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
CA 90275
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
30940 HAWTHORNE Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
Case NOZON 2010-00331
My wife and I live on the corner of Lomo Drive
and La Garita ane are very disturbed at the thought
that the second floor addition will look like a sore
thumb,and will not be compatible with the other homes
on La Garita which are all single story.
We are also disturbed that the construction will take
several months and increase traffic,with large trucks.
There will be much noise,parking problems.and overall
a general nuisance,and possibly a safety problem.
We feel it is not right for one family to destroy the 2~bi~~c
ambiance and the compatibility of the ~eighborhood
with a huge house on a small lot.
We urge this commission to deny this application.
Dorothy and John Bohannon
;~~
ATTACHMENTS 2-114
Members of the Planning Commission,
RECEIVED
JAN 25 2011
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
I recently received a notice in the mail about a height variation request for a
home on 6530 La Garita Ave (Case No.ZON201 0-00331).I also couldn't help
but notice the flags and framework located on the house illustrating the outline of
the proposed expansion.
Though I respect the property rights of my fellow Rancho Palos Verdes
neighbors,I am definitely NOT in favor of this massive expansion to the existing
building.
The beauty of Rancho Palos Verdes is that it is a collection of lovely ranch
houses,designed for and built for the middle class.It's one of the few areas in
the south bay that you can afford to buy and retain a semblance of privacy.This
proposed structure expansion would turn Rancho Palos Verdes into one of the
beach cities,where houses are built practically shoulder to shoulder.The beach
cities:where one's window views are of their neighbor's living room.If this
expansion is allowed,it would begin the "Mc-Mansion"affect that has turned
these beach cities into crowded,noisy and privacy-less locations would slowly
turn our city into a similar locale.The entire ambiance of Rancho Palos Verdes
would be changed for the worse.This would be the beginning of the end for the
city as we know it.
In addition to the concerns over the impact on the city in whole,I must confess I
am greatly disturbed by the direct impact on my house and my privacy.The
privacy I enjoy in my living room,my little son's bedroom and the master bed
room would disappear overnight..-And my back yard,a haven from the chaos of
Los Angeles,would be dwarfed by the dominating structure of this proposed
expansion.We live a peaceful quiet life and enjoy the beauty and privacy of the
Rancho Palos Verdes area.As much as I enjoy my neighbors,I would not like
them to be able to gaze unobstructed into my yard or my house.I can't imagine
anyone would enjoy that destruction of privacy.
I ask that the Planning Commission consider my strenuous concerns in reviewing
this proposed variance.
Yours Sincerely,
\
Paul Czaplicki
January 2011
ATTACHMENTS 2-115
Debra e3 Steven Yocum
Rancho Palocf verdeJ,CA 90275
January 23,2011
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Attention:Planning,Building &Code Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-7800
Re:Case No.ZON2010-00331 6530 La Garita
Dear Planning Commission,
RECEIVED
JAN 25 201'1
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
We have a direct view of the house located at 6530 La Garita from our two front bed-
room and kitchen windows.We are concerned about the size of the structure that will
increase 88%from 1,807 sq.ft to 3,405 sq.ft.and to a height of 25 feet.
The structure is clearly not suited nor compatible with the surrounding homes on La
Garita and Acana as it would present a visual image of a large massive building incon-
sistent with the nearby single story ran<;h style residences.We initially viewed the
plans with the homeowner yet when the silhouette was constructed,we were quite
surprised by the overwhelming massiveness of the house when viewed from the street
and sides.When we viewed the silhouette from the house next door,we could also see
view impairments and privacy issues.This is a structure that we would not want next
door nor behind us for these same reasons.If this structure is allowed,we can expect
more mansion sized buildings that would ruin the character of our neighborhood.
In addition,we are required by the City to keep our trees trimmed to 16 feet to restore
views for other homeowners and this home will far exceed the 16 foot height limit.
Sincerely yours,
Debra Yo in
~k-~ev~c~m
ATTACHMENTS 2-116
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Case No.ZON2010-00331
Location:6530 La Garita
Owner:Issac Magalnic
January 14,2011
Dear Planning Commission:
We are happy to see imfrovements in our neighborhood,as we have remodeled our own
home.However,the 2n story addition on La Garita has caused concerns regarding our
privacy and our views.We regretfully oppose the 2nd floor addition.
Primarily,the addition would invade our privacy.The second story would face the back
of our home and there would be a perfect vantage point to see directly into our master
bedroom and bathroom windows.We would also lose our privacy in our backyard,as the
view from the structure would see our entire backyard area.
Another concern is our view obstruction.One of the main reasons that we purchased our
home was primarily due to the privacy that we have.We have no obstructions from the
back of our home.We enjoy the views of the sky,surrounding trees and landscape.With
the building of the structure our views would be obstructed and shadowed by the 2nd story
addition.
The size of the structure would not conform to the surrounding homes in the immediate
area.The house would be too large and tower over the other existing homes in the area.
We also have concerns regarding the additional noise coming from the (if completed)
bedrooms of the 2nd floor addition.
Due to the floor plan,specifically the multipurpose rooms and the bathroom that they
propose suggests that they are using it for commercial purposes.This usage other than
as a single family residence would cause excess noise and congestion,either by persons
or by vehicles,due to the amount of people gathering in the area would be a problem.
Thank you for your consideration.
Curtis and Debbie Watanabe
ATTACHMENTS 2-117
Richard Ferguson
28047 Lomo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
January 27,2011
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner
City Of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,BUilding,&Code Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
Re.Height Variation &Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON2010-00331)
Location:6530 La Garita
Property Owner:Issac Magalnic
Dear Ms.Mikhail:
In response to the notice dated January 3,2011,of a public hearing on February 8 to consider the
referenced height variation and site plan proposal,the following considerations are submitted.Mr.
Magalnic has sought to inform me of the details of his plans to modify his dwelling.I signed
agreement with his proposal because the distance between our properties seemed to render any
significant effects on me unlikely.However,after further thought,it occurs to me that there may be
legitimate concerns of property owners closer to and abutting the subject property.Of course,
although I am submitting some considerations in their behalf,it will be up to them to inform you and
press their concerns about issues that they deem important.
1.Views And Compatibility With The Immediate Neighborhood Character:
The immediate area contains single family,single story homes.Surrounding homeowners may
have bought into the neighborhood !n part because of its consistent architectural appearance.
Especially for abutting property owners,increasing the height to two stories as proposed could
replace a desired view from some vantage point with a two story wall.
2.Privacy:
Privacy of adjacent and nearby properties may be compromised.The usual 6-foot fence
surrounding back yards may no longer be adequate.
3.Use:
Will an intended use of the modified residence result in substantial increases in noise /sound,
traffic and parking needs in the neighborhood?
.4.Property Values:
Will increasing the height of the subject home as proposed reduce the desirability,hence,
value of abutting and other nearby properties?
Thank you,
~d:t1!Jl-f.4z;>-t--
Richard E.Ferguson
REefl 0
JAN 28 20B
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
ATTACHMENTS 2-118
January 9,2011
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building,&Code Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
RECEIVED
JAN 12 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Garry &Jeanette Yefsky
28056 Ella Road
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Case No.:
Location:
Property Owner:
ZON2010-00331
6530 La Garita
Issac Magalnic
Dear Representatives of the Planning Commission:
It is our understanding that the proposed additions to 6530 La Garita residence will
convert this single story three bedroom residence into a five bedroom,four bathroom,
twenty five feet in height,home.Our neighborhood recently had a second story addition
placed at the residence located at 28129 Ella Road.The latter residence is located on a
significantly bigger lot with almost the same square footage as the proposed plans for
construction on La Garita.The noted residence on Ella is an eyesore with an appearance
that is not compatible with the surrounding homes.
Our neighborhood is primarily a one-story neighborhood.The size,height,and footprint
ofthis addition on a relatively small lot will detract significantly from the privacy of
others.The size,bulk,and scale of this addition is not consistent with the homes within
our neighborhood.I would have no objection to this family choosing to build out onto
their first story.Their proposal to build up on this grand of scale is simply not a proper
fit for La Garita and the surrounding areas.
Please consider our above objections before you take any further action toward approving
this addition.We see ourselves as good neighbors and only desire that property owners
who intend to make such significant changes to their property might put themselves in the
position of their neighbors.La Garita has had the good fortune of avoiding any unsightly
second story additions and has retained the quaintness of how these single family
residences were designed and built in this tract.Thank you for all your consideration in
this matter.
Sincerely,~
a~
ATTACHMENTS 2-119
Page 1 of2
Leza Mikhail
From:Diane L.Hayden [dianeLhayden@cox.net]
Sent:Monday,January 31,2011 5:25 PM
To:planning@rpv.com
Cc:lezam@rpv.com
Subject:Re:Case No.ZON2010-00331/6530 La Garita
6538 La Garita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
January 28,2010
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Case No.ZON2010-00331/6530 La Garita
To the Planning Commission:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the proposed second-story addition to the
Magalnics'house,which is right next door to ours.
The Magalnics have been good neighbors for many years and we hope for many more.Several weeks
ago,they came over and showed us the plans for the proposed addition.We discussed the plans with them and
expressed some concerns and possible mitigating solutions.We are not opposed,in principle,to second-story
additions in our neighborhood and support the idea that major improvements to properties benefit the
neighborhood.Our concerns centered on loss of privacy and sunlight,of which the Magalnics were quite
understanding..
All of that being said,we have two concerns about the proposal,both of which were not apparent until the
flags went up on the roof marking the second-story addition.The first relates to the second story's extension in
the front of the house,over the wing of the house that contains the garage.The second relates to the mass of the
second story as seen from our back yard and its impact on our privacy.Both concerns are exacerbated by the
fact that our rooflines are only eight feet apart (as a result of a variance when our house was built).
The Front
When the Magalnics showed us the drawings of their proposed addition,we commented that we preferred
that they not extend any portion of the second story over their garage,which may have led to a
misunderstanding.We meant that we hoped the second story addition would not extend beyond the front plane
of the main part of the house.When the flags went up,it was apparent that their second story does extend 10 to
12 feet toward the street beyond this front plane,reducing significantly the sunlight into our front picture window.
(The main part of the extension is not actually over the garage,but over the kitchen and utility room on the garage
wing of the house -hence the misunderstanding.)Additionally,the roofline over the garage is being raised about
three feet above its present height,which further reduces the light (and one of our only views of the sky)from the
home office in our house.
There do not appear to be any houses in the neighborhood that have extended a second story beyond
that front plane of the main house toward the street.The effect on our property of building out towards the street
is to make us seem more "boxed in"and destroys the general openness of the neighborhood front yards.
The Back
When we bought our house in 1995,back-yard privacy was a real selling point.Although it has no view,
the back yard is completely private.Until the flags went up,we had no idea just how massive a second-story
addition would look from our back yard and how thoroughly it takes away the privacy of our back yard and patio.
2/1/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-120
Page 2 of2
If the addition is built as planned,that positive feature of our property will be gone.
We understood all along that any second story addition would impinge somewhat on the privacy of our
back yard,and expressed that concern to the Magalnics when they showed us the plans.Isaac told us that the
only window on the side of the house adjacent to our property would be small and placed towards the center of
the wall to ensure our privacy.Additionally,Isaac agreed that he could plant a tree to block the view directly into
our back yard from some of the back windows.Upon reflection,these are only temporary mitigations since there
is nothing to prevent a subsequent owner from adding windows or cutting down a tree.
In summary,we value the Magalnics as good neighbors and friends,which makes it difficult to object in
any form to their proposal.We support their desire to improve their home.Our concern is that the addition is
overly massive in its extension over the garage wing,and will impact on our back-yard privacy.
Sincerely yours,
Paul &Diane Hayden
2/1/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-121
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail------,-----,-,-----.-._------------
From:Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,February 01,2011 1:02 PM
To:'Leza Mikhail'
Subject:FW:Permit for Construction at 6530 La Garita
From:Ibarlock [mailto:lbarlock@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday,February 01,201111:34 AM
To:pc@rpv.com;Iizam@rpv.com
Subject:Permit for Construction at 6530 La Garita
I reside at 28070 Santona Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes.
--,------,---,-,.,-----------
While I do understand and respect the home owner's plans to remodel his house,I am objecting to the
proposed second story addition with the proposed ridgeline height of 25 feet as it does restrict the view
of the ocean from my home.Furthermore,adding the second story to the 6530 La Garita home would
set a precedent for approving second story additions for the surrounding homes.This precedent
certainly would further restrict views of the ocean.
We have successfully worked with three neighbors to maintain our ocean view and accordingly reached
agreements to maintain tree trimming heights.The City Staf f has likewise diligently trimmed the
parkway trees to preserve neighborhood views of the ocean.
I support the current view protection policies that exist in Rancho Palos Verdes.I ask the Planning
Commission,City Staff,and the City Council to enforce the long standing policy that protects our ocean
VIews.
Larry Barlock
2/1/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-122
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
"--------_._------------------------_--.:...
From:Jesse 1m [bugonmyleaf@yahoo.com]
Sent:Wednesday,January 19, 2011 3:37 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Subject:CASE NO.ZON2010-00331
Dear Leza Mikhail,
My name is Jesse 1m.1 am one of the new home owners in the Los Verdes Estate in RPV.1 moved RPV
from Torrance in early 2010 to live in a quiet and family oriented neighborhood with single story
houses.This proposal will lead others to just enlarge their property for the profit and sooner or later,this
area will look like any other beach communities with tall houses on the stilts.1 am just voicing my
concern as one of the RPV home owners.
Thank you.
Jesse 1m
28051 Acana Rd.RPV
2/1/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-123
RE(;tIVl:U
FEB 012011
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We would like to first take this time to say thank you for reading our letter regarding our input toward
the second story addition to 6530 La Garita.Our family recently moved to this neighborhood in
December 2008 in order for our daughter to grow up in a neighborhood environment where there was
truly a sense of community.We especially enjoy living in a neighborhood that looked and felt spacious
with trees and other green plantation that gives it a warmer feeling than the colder concrete look of
other cities.We also feel very comfortable having space between our homes where you did not feel
your privacy was encroached by having houses close together or larger homes that diminished your view
and sense of space.This has truly been a great place to live and we are happy with our decision to move
to Palos Verdes.We enjoy walking our dog around the neighborhood,talking with neighbors,and
visiting the farmer's market on Sunday mornings.
This letter has been difficult to write since we would not wish to deny anyone the right to improve their
residence and provide a better home for their family.If there was not an intrusion to our line of sight in
the backyard and diminishing of privacy and space,we would have supported the addition as we have
for the second story addition on Lomo Drive.We have included pictures from our backyard looking west
at the proposed addition.The addition will be visible from our backyard and block the view of the ocean
and sunsets we sometimes have the opportunity of viewing.Although it impacts us,it also impacts our
neighbors even more as the house is directly behind their home and they would have the misfortune of
seeing the new addition from their living room.
We feel very fortunate to have very good n~ighbors and new friends in our neighborhood and feel that
this addition although beneficial for one family provides more disruption to the overall neighborhood
and disadvantage to more.We are not against additions or even second story additions in the right
location that does not impact others.It is our opinion that the home at 6530 La Garita is not in a viable
location to build a second story and are against this proposed project.
Slnce~
Alicia and Ned Morimoto
6517 Certa Drive
ATTACHMENTS 2-124
View from backyard
ATTACHMENTS 2-125
View from backyard looking at proposed addition
ATTACHMENTS 2-126
21 January 2011
The Watson Family
6524 La Garita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275
City of Rancho Palos Verdes ,
Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275·5391
Re:Case Number:ZON2010-00331
Location:6530 La Garita Drive
To the Planning Commission,Community Development Director,and Staff:
We own the property abutting the east side of 6530 La Garita and strongly oppose the owner's plan to
increase the size of his house by adding a second story.His proposed design has more than double the
living space of the original house and would result in a structure too massive for the scale of the
neighborhood.At 25 feet in height,it would be the tallest structure in the neighborhood,and with so narrow
a lot,its bulk would appear completely out of place and inconsistent with the neighborhood's aesthetic
character.
The proposed design would create a structure that would tower over our property and provide the
occupants with an elevated view of our yard and the inside of our home.For the nearly 50 years we've
lived here,our back and side yards have been entirely private,but with this proposal,absolutely no part of
either of these yards would be private.Moredver,our side bathroom would no longer have the protection of
the fence for privacy,and with the window open,occupants of the proposed structure would be able to look
down and see the sink,shower,and toilet,either directly,or in reflection on the mirror.Our small entry
courtyard -currently offset and shielded by shrubs -would be in plain view and no longer private.The
same for our laundry and service room;currently shielded,the inside of the room would be clearly visible
every time the door is opened.The entire area just outside our front bedrooms,which currently has the
protection of a fence and shrubbery,would be visible,and if weren't for a small section of our roof,the
inside of both bedrooms would be visible as well.Anyone coming or going from the house would be
subject to oversight from a window only 30 feet away,as would anyone getting in or out of a car in the
driveway.The absurd intrusiveness of the proposed design boggles the mind.Our privacy is extremely
important to us;expecting us to accept any loss of it is unacceptable.
Another significant issue we have with the proposed addition is how it overshadows -both figuratively and
literally -our home.With only 9%feet currently separating our roofs,a structure as large as what's
proposed would appear as a 25 foot high wall along the western side of our home,and depending on
season and time of day,it would block sunlight over large portions of our home and yard.Heating and
lighting requirements in our home would increase,and the main hall and bathroom would be perpetually
dark.The loss of light in the hall and bath is an especially important concern to us;we take care of an
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENTS 2-127
elderly parent and having these areas well lit at all times is essential to preveJl1fing falls.The landscaping
along the fence line,and that just outside our front bedrooms,would be shadowed most of the day,with
much of it probably succumbing to the lack of light.Most of this shrubbery is 50 years old,and many of the
plants are privacy barriers;their loss would only exacerbate the privacy issues covered in the previous
paragraph.We had also been considering solar lighting,and a photovoltaic installation (we have a
correctly-pitched,south-facing roof)but these upgrades are now on hold until a final disposition is made on
the proposed second story.We purchased our home nearly 50 years ago with the full expectation of a
sunlit yard and structure;suddenly having a substantial portion of this light blocked just to accommodate a
code variance does not adequately justify the impact it would have on us.
Noise has always been an issue with the property at 6530 La Garita.The current structure (house and
garage)is "L"shaped and tends to focus much of the noise that's produced in the household directly into
our home.Recent upgrades to the property intensified the problem when the side and front yards were
paved up to the fence-line,and became major sound reflectors.Everything at that property,from
conversations and the kid's toys,to the sound of the washer and dryer,can be heard in our living and bed
rooms.Whenever the occupants close their car doors or their house's front door,all our windows rattle.
Couple this with all their social and business activities,and with all the traffic that it brings,and the noise
level can be almost intolerable at times.We often have to keep our windows closed just to reduce the
noise.The proposed second-story addition (which is also an "L"configuration),combined with the
increased activity the larger structure would bring,will only worsen the situation.Additionally,overhead
sounds coming from nearby Hawthorne Boulevard would now be intercepted by the higher structure and
reflected into our home.The end result of all this additional noise could equivalent living right on the main
Boulevard itself.
We are aware that there is not much in City regulations that covers house occupancy and use,but there
are major compatibility issues in these regards,and they also need to be addressed during this review
process.A larger home generally has more traffic,both pedestrian and vehicular,than a smaller home,
and it also requires more space for parking.In a neighborhood like ours,consisting exclusively of smaller,
single-story homes,a large two-story structure,as proposed,would place a greater burden on the adjacent
properties,as well as the shared resources of the overall neighborhood.At present,the owner of the
proposed addition conducts a substantial amount of social and business activities at his home.La Garita
Drive,and several adjacent streets,are often filled with parked cars,and activities at the home sometimes
continue until 11 :30 PM.In reviewing the layouts for his expansion,it appears that the first floor is being
tailored to accommodate an increased amount of this activity,which could severely overtax the
neighborhood.Moreover,for the occupants alone,whether the current family or future residents,there
could be a need to park as many as 6 or more vehicles,but there is only enough space on the property to
park half that.
In our efforts to identify all the potential impacts the proposed addition would have on our property,we
contacted a real estate broker and he verified our suspicions that our property value would probably be
negatively affected by as much as 15%.He based this opinion on our close proximity to a home that was
aesthetically inconsistent with the neighborhood,as well as the fact that oversized structures generally
carry a dollar-per-square-foot rate that's lower than the prevailing rate for the neighborhood.He said
adjacent properties are usually affected by this lower rate by default,and that the effect tends to diminish
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENTS 2-128
the farther your property sits frOm'the modified structure.Losing our home:r'lTlarketability is not something
we can accept.Our home represents family,and our life's work;it's been our purpose and security for
nearly 50 years.
We were told by the owner of 6530 La Garita,as well as several members of the Planning Staff,that we
were in a "neighborhood in transition",with the owner adding that all the homes in the neighborhood would
eventually be two-story.We do not agree;30 -40%of the homes in the tract sit in view plains,and any
uncontrolled,wide-scale conversion of the neighborhood would result in a hodge-podge of large and small
homes that would be inconsistent with most of the neighborhoods in the City.
There have also been several references by Planning Staff to other large two-story homes within the tract,
specifically at the south end of Ella and Lomo Roads.These should be excluded from any neighborhood
compatibility analysis because they were built by the Developer in later phases of the tract,using different
styles and larger lots.The original phase only included the homes on La Garita,Certa,Acana,the north
end of Ella,the north end of Lomo,and a small stretch of Monero.All these homes were single-story,and
all were spaced accordingly.With fences,all had private backyards.
In the years since,a small quantity of homes in this original tract have been expanded,with several adding
second-floors.Of these,only 2 have proportions similar to what's proposed at 6530 La Garita.One,at
28070 Ella Road,sits along a stretch of wide lots and appears unobtrusive from the front,but it occupies
most of the backyard,overlooking the adjacent properties and reducing their privacy significantly.The
other home,at 28129 Ella Road,was recently remodeled and sits on a narrow lot the same width as the
proposed structure at 6530 La Garita.Although this home is not as tall as the structure proposed for La
Garita,it still appears too massive for the lot,and an odd fit for the neighborhood.
We were one of the first families to move into the original tract,and in the nearly 50 years since,we have
never faced a situation such as this which cOL!ld so adversely,and so thoroughly,effect the qualities we
value most about our home and the neighborhood:the open,uncongested environment,the privacy,and
the quiet surroundings.We've long thought these qualities were reasonably protected by ordinances and
codes,but to find how easily they can be bypassed through the issuance of variances is surprising,and yet
disheartening.We do not seek advantage in this matter either;just a full recognition of our concerns and
that they're properly addressed.
We've attempted to present our position as sincerely,thoroughly,and objectively as possible and hope the
information figures materially in your decision.If further information is required,please feel free to contact
us anytime.
Sincerely,
1.4 Wd;tJjUlt<J,
q~"tJ-?Vn£r~!i~
The Watson Family
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS 2-129
P.c.Staff Report March 22,2011
ATTACHMENTS 2-130
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Staff Coordinator:
CHAIRMAN AND MEM:rFT.e PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMUNITY DEVELOP N IRECTOR
MARCH 22,2011
HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.2010-
00331);PROJECT ADDRESS -6530 lA GARITA (lANDOWNER-
ISAAC MAGAlNIC)
Leza Mikhail,Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Continue the public hearing to the April 12,2011 meeting.
DISCUSSION
On September 20,2010,the applicant submitted a Height Variation and Site Plan Review
application to the Community Development Department for review and processing.The
applicant requested approval to construct a 131 square foot first floor addition and a 1,467
square foot second floor addition.
On February 8,2011,the application was heard by the Planning Commission.At the
meeting,the Planning Commission heard testimony from a number of neighbors regarding
privacy impacts,bulk and mass issues related to a second-story addition,and potential
view impairment from properties along Santoma and Certa Drive.After hearing the public
testimony,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 22,2011 to
allow the applicant to modify the design of the project with direction to lower the roofline 4'_
0",reduce the second story setback from the front,sides and rear and reduce potential
privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbors.The Planning Commission also requested that
Staff visit 6517 Certa to conduct a view analysis based on a photograph submitted to Staff
just prior to the February 8,2011 Planning Commission meeting.
Since the February 8,2011 Planning Commission meeting,the applicant has revised the
project in an attempt to meet the Planning Commission's concerns.However,Staff has not
been able to visit 6517 Certa Drive (the Morimoto's)due to a lack of clear days and Staff's
inability to access the property with the Marimoto's home during work hours.Staff has
spoken with the Morimoto's and emphasized the need to visit the property and conduct a
view analysis on a clear day.Staff anticipates coordinating with the property owners of
6517 Certa to accommodate access to their viewing area prior to the next Planning
Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS 2-131
P.C.Staff Report (Case No.ZON2010-00331)
March 22,2011
Page 2
Staff has notified the applicant that access on a clear day to the Morimoto's property has
been unsuccessful and discussed continuing the project to the April 12,2011 Planning
Commission meeting.The applicant is aware and agrees with Staff's recommended
continuance in an effort to resolve any potential view impacts to surrounding neighbors.
Since Staff needs additional time to conduct a view analysis and the applicant has agreed
to a continuance,Staff is recommending that the public hearing be continued to the April
12,2011 Planning Commission meeting.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Correspondence
Since the February 8,2011 Planning Commission meeting,Staff has received a number of
additional letters related to the proposed project from surrounding neighbors.Staff has
attached the letters that were received between February 9,2011 and the release of this
report.Any correspondence received after the release of this report and prior to the March
22,2011 Planning Commission meeting will be delivered to the Planning Commission at
the meeting.It should also be noted that all correspondence received on the application
along with the original staff report will be included with the April 12,2011 Planning
Commission Staff Report.
Permit Streamlining Act
The original decision deadline for the proposed project was February 14,2011.The
property owner verbally agreed to a 90-day extension at the February 8,2011 Planning
Commission meeting,making the new decision deadline May 15,2011.
ATTACHMENTS
•Public Correspondence received since the February 8,2011 Planning Commission
meeting
ATTACHMENTS 2-132
Public Correspondence
(Received after 2-8-11 P.C.meeting)
ATTACHMENTS 2-133
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Case No.ZON2010-00331
Location:6530 La Garita
Owner:Issac Magalnic
March 2,2011
Dear Planning Commission:
RECEIVED
MAR 03 2011
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
We have seen the new revised plans dated February 16th ,2011 (date stamped February
22nd).
Primarily,the addition would still invade our privacy.
As of now the vegetation from the overgrown trees in the Magalnic's and Hayden's
backyard temporarily do partially block the vantage point.If the trees were properly
trimmed,which they should be for the health ofthe tree and for an aesthetically pleasing
look of the trees,the vantage point would again be clearly visible from the view from
proposed 2nd story bedrooms at 6530 La Garita.They would be able to see directly into
our bedroom &bathroom windows and we would lose our privacy in our entire backyard
area
Another concern is our view obstruction.Again,one ofthe main reasons that we
purchased our home was primarily due to the privacy that we have.We have no
obstructions from the back of our home.We enjoy the views of the surrounding trees and
landscape.With the building ofthe structure our views would be obstructed and
shadowed by the 2nd story addition.
The size of the structure would not conform to the surrounding homes in the immediate
area.The house would be too large and tower over the other existing homes in the area.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Curtis and Debbie Watanabe
ATTACHMENTS 2-134
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Louise Lalande [lounsam1@aol.com]
Saturday,March 05,2011 3:21 PM
LEZAM@RPV.COM
6530 LA GARITA DR.R.p.v
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RP.V.MS.LEZA MIKHAIL
THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION AT 6530 LA GARITA DR HAS BEEN REDUCED,BUT
STILL REMAINS A SECOND STORY ADD ON,IN A ONE STORY NEIGHBORHOOD I AM
CONCERNED ....THAT THE HOUSES AROUND MY HOUSE WILL BE ABLE TO ADD A SECOND
STORY,IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED LOUISE LALANDE
28031 ACANA RD.
RP.V CA.90275
1
ATTACHMENTS 2-135
RECEIVED
MAR 10 2011
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE I:I"FORCEMENT
March 9,2011
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275-5391
Case Number:ZON2010-00331
Location:6530 La Garita Drive
To the Planning Commission:
We live two houses east of 6530 La Garita and do not support the proposal to add a second-story
to this property.We feel it would result in a structure to massive for the scale of the surrounding
homes,significantly impacting the overall character of the neighborhood.The lots within this
portion of the tract are narrow and can only comfortably sustain single-story structures.
We chose this community as our home 10 years ago.The reason we were drawn to this
particular neighborhood because it was 9uiet,and not congested.A large second-story addition,
like what is proposed,would degrade the neighborhood's uniqueness and visually overpower its
aesthetic consistency.
Lawrence &Christine Young
6518 La Garita Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ATTACHMENTS 2-136
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
Re:Case Number:ZON2010-00331
Location:6530 La Garita Drive
The Tsai Family
6512 La Garita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
RECE\VED
MI\R 11 2C\;
plANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENfORCEMENT
To the Planning Commission,Community Development Director and Staff:
We own the property west of 6530 La Garita and strongly oppose the owner's plan
to increase the size of his house by adding an additional story.The projected
changes to this house more than doubles the original space of the house and
ultimately results in a residence that is 25 feet in height and far too massive for the
scale of the neighborhood.Our main concerns surround the aesthetic effects as well
as added noise and street traffic the changes would bring.
When we moved to the La Garita neighborhood over six years ago,the
neighborhood's pleasing design,more specifically the conformity ofthe surrounding
one-story residences attracted us to move in.However,with 6530 residence's
additional second story,this would no longer be the case because the rest of the
one-story houses in the neighborhood would immediately appear out of sync.
Although it may seem trivial to oppose our neighbor's wishes to change the
structure of their house based on aesthetic purposes,reasons reach beyond this.
After consulting a real estate broker,we were informed that our house would
depreciate by as much as 10-15%as a direct result of the inconsistencies between
the 6530 residence and ours.The fact that 6530's proposed second story has a
direct effect on our home as well as the entire residence's marketability is absurd,
and absolutely should not be allowed.Not only would these changes obviously effect
our ability to resell our house in the future,but would significantly alter the
landscape of our street-one that if we had known would exist later on,would not
have moved here almost a decade ago.
We are well aware that RPV City regulations does not govern house occupancy and
use,but there are other issues that arise from the proposed second story that are of
concern to us and potentially the city.From reviewing the owner's layout for
proposed expansion,it is clear that the first floor is being altered in order to
accommodate increasing guest capacity for 6530's social functions they hold
ATTACHMENTS 2-137
throughout the week,often well past 10PM.With an already extremely limited
amount of parking space available,even us residents and our guests have difficulty
finding parking.If 6530's proposal is approved,the inevitable amount of street
traffic and noise that would exist would pose a significant problem not only to our
household,but the entire La Garita street.Furthermore,noise has always been an
issue with the proposed residence.The building of a second story would become a
cause for concern to many of our elderly residents who require constant care,and
added noise would add extra difficulties for them and their caretakers.
Up until now,we have assumed that the issues raised against 6530 La Garita's
proposed building were protected in RPV's ordinances and city codes;however,we
were shocked and disappointed to realize the relative ease at which they can be
evaded.We hope that our position and concerns have been clearly and effectively
conveyed and will be sincerely considered by the Planning Commission.If any
further information is needed,please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,-r--) _
~/~~
The Tsai Family
(310)265-9668
ATTACHMENTS 2-138
PlANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
05 March 2011
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275-5391
Re:Case Number:ZON2010-00331
Location:6530 La Garita Drive
RECEIVED
MAR 10 2011
The Watson Family
6524 La Garita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275
To the Planning Commission,Community Development Director,and Staff:
We own the home abutting the east side of the above referenced property.Although the owner of this
property has made a number of changes to his proposed addition since the Commission's hearing on
February 8,2011,very little has been done to minimize its impact upon us.We,therefore,remain in
opposition to his plan to add a second story.
We went to considerable lengths to ensure a thorough and objective analysis of the available information in
order to establish a sound basis for our position.Not only did we spend hours reviewing the new drawings
and evaluating the reconfigured silhouette,we.assembled scale-drawings of the proposed structure and its
relationship to our home,created several mock-ups,and made numerous measurements using laser
ranging and leveling equipment.In short,we did everything we could to fully assess the matter,and its
effects on us.
Our concerns and issues are as follows:
1)Our privacy is of the utmost importance to us,and although the applicant eliminated several
windows originally proposed in his earlier design,he would still have an elevated view of all our
backyard,and significant portions of our front yard.These are areas which have been protected by
fencing for nearly 50 years.This intrusion would be completely unacceptable to us.
2)Although the pitch of the roof has been reduced from the earlier design,and a small set-back
incorporated into each side,the sheer size of the proposed addition would still over-shadow our
property,blocking sunlight over large portions of our home and yard.Our only source of natural
light in the west end of our home would still be perpetually blocked,and nothing has been done to
correct this.We should not be expected to artificially light and heat our home,both day and night,
just to compensate for a poorly conceived home addition.This is simply not right,and it needs to
be corrected in a fashion which eliminates any impact to us.
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENTS 2-139
3)Nothing has been done to reduce noise propagation and reflection either;the proposed addition is
still "l"shaped,and between this characteristic and the structure's proposed height,noise would
still be channeled toward our home.Moreover,the applicant still intends to install a large window
in a proposed living/meeting room several feet from our bedrooms.From our view point,this
window is an unnecessary intrusion since the room already has another large window facing away
from our home.
4)Even in its revised configuration,the proposed structure is still too massive for the scale of the
neighborhood.With so narrow a lot,its bulk would appear completely out of place and inconsistent
with the neighborhood's aesthetic character.And because of its unique placement and elevation,it
would be the only two-story structure which could ever be built on la Garita that wouldn't
significantly impair the protected views of the residents on Santona Drive.In essence,it would be
an anomaly,not the forerunner of a two-story conversion trend.
5)Whether the original design,or the revised version,the aesthetic inconsistency of such an over-
built structure would still adversely impact our property value as explained in detail in our earlier
correspondence.And as we stated before,losing our home's marketability is completely
unacceptablE:to us.Our home represents family,and our life's work;it's been our purpose and
security for nearly 50 years.
6)We were surprised to find that the bulk of the structure was somewhat understated in the portion of
the silhouette closest to our home on the south corner.The outside wall,next to the window,was
a foot and a half inside the proposed footprint,and the height of the stake only represented the
second-floor top plate,excluding the overall thickness of the roof and rafters.It's hard enough
trying to visualize the eaves on a silholJette;in this instance,the silhouette was practically useless.
The only thing we know for sure is that there's a lot more mass on the corner of the structure than
what's depicted.Additionally,many of the flags and stakes have fallen off over the past several
weeks,significantly reducing the apparent bulk of the project.We certainly hope that any decisions
based on the silhouette take this into consideration.
There are three qualities we value most about our home and the neighborhood:the open,uncongested
environment,the privacy,and the quiet surroundings.That's why we've lived here for nearly 50 years,and
that's why we believe many people choose this neighborhood as their home.We hope that these qualities
are an important consideration during your decision process.Please feel free to contact us if you require
any further information.
Sincerely,
The Watson Family
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENTS 2-140
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Lindley Ruddick [elruddick@cox.net]
Sent:Thursday,March 10,2011 9:59 AM
To:lezam@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com
Subject:HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.ZON2010-00331)
Attachments:analysis.pdf;ATT00032.htm
SUBJECT:HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.ZON201 0-00331)
We are writing to ask that the Staff recommend to the Planning Commission denial of the height variance for this proposed project and
that the Planning Commission deny the height variance.
We have viewed the re-silhouetted structure and the revised plans for this project.It is our opinion that this proposal even as revised is
not compatible with the surrounding homes.It still presents the visual image of a large,bulky mass when viewed from the street which is
inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding residences.The lack of a large front set back and minimal side set backs visually
increase the feeling of mass and bulk.This mass and bulk reduces the feeling of an open neighborhood that was a major consideration
when we bought our property and has been a prime selling point for this neighborhood.
This proposed structure with its height of 21 feet exceeds the 16 foot height limit that the trees in front of the property were trimmed to in
order to restore and maintain a view.We do not see why a height variance should be granted for a permanent structure when
green,environmentally friendly trees were trimmed and will continually need trimming in the future to maintain the 16 foot level.
The staff has analyzed the closest 20 homes for compatibility.It is our understanding that the Staff interpretation of "closest homes"is
not the physically closest homes but the homes that one might see as they enter and exit the immediate neighborhood.As a result we
offer an alternate analysis (see attached)by including our house on Acana Road as we will see this massive structure,if approved,each
time we leave or return home.We have chosen to remove the two story structure at 28070 Ella Road from the analysis as it possibly
would not meet the present criteria for neighborhood compatibility.This alternate analysis makes no significant change in the average lot
size but does reduce the average structure size from 2,028 sq ft to 1,940 sq ft.As a result the proposed structure of 2,785 sq ft is the
second largest in the immediate area and 144%of the average structure size.We feel it is significant that all of the other structures are
single story regardless of square footage.Both the original analysis and the alternate analysis show that the other large structures are
either on significantly larger lots or have increased the living area in a manner such that height variances were not required.
We believe that most of us purchased our homes with full understanding of the surrounding homes and had reasonable expectations
that they would remain compatible.We took into consideration the location of two story homes which we felt were placed in appropriate
locations by the original developers.We certainly did not anticipate that we might become surrounded by towering structures of steadily
increasing size reSUlting in the "McMansionization"of our neighborhood with the resulting reduction of privacy,increasing visual
massiveness of the structures and visual polution.The Planning Commission has had much discussion concerning the creeping
mansionization of neighborhoods similar to ours.If approv!'ld,this revised project is a perfect example of this and something Which we
do not desire.The neighborhood compatibility ordinance was passed by the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes to assure that this would not
be the case.The residents of Rancho Palos Verdes did not and do not wish to become another beach city with oversized,visually
massive houses crowded onto small lots.
Lindley &Sandra Ruddick
28042 Acana Road
3/11/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-141
Height Variation &Site Plan Review
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00331
Page 8
(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
6512 La Garita 7824 1,682 1
6518 La Garita 7,632 1,582 1
6524 La Garita 7,260 1.582 1
6538 La Garita 7,216 2,062 1
6544 La Garita 8082 1,837 1
28103 Lorna 7091 1 582 1
28047 Lamo 7615 1 833 1
28074 Acana 7477 1 833 1
28073 Acana 7,519 1,942 1
28067 Acana 7558 2066 1
28064 Acana 7,003 1,582 1
6525 Certa 7327 2,154 1
6531 Carta 6,988 1,694 1
28084 Ella 7307 2,056 1
28081 Ella 11,061 1,833 1
28087 Ella 12367 2519 1
28103 Ella 11,728 3,157 1
28109 Ella 11,152 2 116 1
.~.~~
28076 Ella 1
.z.e.£-d '-b..~I
Avera e nla
\q4D
6530 La Garita 7,039 1,807 1
(Ot)?o w/(U ~'Prwpos~'1 'O?J-l 6/'L2.1 '}')I )
8
ATTACHMENTS 2-142
CtlVED
MAR 10 2011
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,90275-5391
March 7,2011
28103 Lomo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
CA 90275
Case Number:ZON2010-00331
My wife and I live on the corner of Lomo Drive and La Garita and
consider the revised version of the second-floor addition,
planned for 6530 La Garita,to be inconsistent with the
neighborhood.Its bulk and mass far exceed the scale of
neighboring homes,which are all single-story.
We have lived in this neighborhood for 50 years and consider its
quiet,uncongested ambiance the primary reason why this
neighborhood is so comfortable.Allowing so large a structure
to be built on such a small lot,amongst all the smaller homes,
would only ruin this ambiance.
We urge the Commission to deny this application.
Dorothy and John Bo~annon
A,P~!3~
fik'f~~
ATTACHMENTS 2-143
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Jolie Hughes Uamhughes@hotmail.com]
Sent:Thursday,March 10,2011 4:59 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com
Subject:6530 La Garita Proposal
Dear Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Staff and Planning Commission,
As homeowners at 28057 Acana Road,we are close neighbors to the proposed addition of 6530 La Garita,and
ask that the planning department deny approval of a project of this size.We understand it has been reduced
slightly from the original proposal,but is still too large and bulky.It does not fit with the surrounding
homes.Also,the large second story windows opening to the back neighbor are a privacy concern.
We moved our young family into this neighborhood 13 years ago precisely because of the modest,single level
homes that are sized appropriately for their lot size.We had also looked in Orange County and found the
"McMansions"of large homes on small lots unappealing.We would ask that our neighborhood be allowed to
maintain its well-proportioned and size-appropriate feel.Each project of this type (added story with overly-large
increase in square footage on a lot designed for a single story)would only lead to more compatibles in the
neighborhood for future proposed oversized additions and eventually the loss of a lovely Rancho Palos Verdes
neighborhood.Please stop this from happening by denying this project.
Sincerely,
Michael and Jolie Hughes
28057 Acana Road
3/11/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-144
To whom it may concern,
We are the resident at 6525 Certa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes.We are protesting against
building any second story addition on the property located at 6530 La Greta Drive.We don't like
to see a roof from our back yard.It is bad for us and bad for the beauty of our neighborhood.I
have seen what happen to a neighborhood once the city allow everyone to over build their home
with the second stories.It would also make it very difficult and unreasonable for our future
appraisal in case of refinancing or purchasing any home in this area.We like the look of our area
and that is why I bought our home here over 15 years ago.We would greatly appreciate it if the
City Planner rejects the above case.
Sincerely,
Tony Nafissi
Cell:310.408.0333
tonynafissi@prusouthbay.com
ATTACHMENTS 2-145
Page 1 of2
Leza Mikhail--------------_._._-----_._--_._-----.._----_._--
From:Diane L.Hayden [dianeLhayden@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,March 08,2011 10:52 AM
To:planning@rpv.com;lezam@rpv.com
Subject:RE:Case No.ZON2010-00331 /6530 La Garita
Attachments:Planning commission letter 3.doc
6538 La Garita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
March 8,2011
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Case No.ZON2010-00331/6530 La Garita
To the Planning Commission:
We have reviewed the modifications to our neighbor's proposal for a second story addition with
Isaac Magalnic and we are writing again to clarify our concerns that we feel are still not being
met with the revised design.
As we stated in our earlier letter of February 5,2011,we have two major concerns:(1)the
extension of the second-story addition b~yond the plane of the main house,extending toward
the street over the wing of the house containing the garage and (2)the significant loss of
privacy in our back yard.Both concerns remain,even with the most recent modifications to the
plan.
Leza Mikhail advised us to clarify our concerns one more time and to suggest possible
solutions.
Issue 1)As to the front,the new design,as best as we can tell,comes forward of the original
front plane of the main part of the house by about six feet.La Garita is a small street with only
six ranch houses on relatively small lots.As we wrote earlier,there are no two-story houses in
our immediate neighborhood.The existing two-story homes in the wider neighborhood all
follow this principle,which makes two-story traditional houses compatible with their one-story
ranch-house neighbors.Please refer to the pictures we sent February.5 which document all
the two-story houses in the neighborhood.
Possible solution to 1)This concern would be addressed if this portion of the new
addition were pushed back,away from the street,by approximately six feet to follow the
plane of the original footprint of the front of the house.This would be consistent with
what we understood the planning commissioners to say at the February 8th meeting.In
a discussion with the architect,one commissioner clarified that the articulation
requirement did not mean that the renovation should come beyond the current footprint
of the house,enlarging the upper story;rather,he pointed out on both front and back
3/812011 ATTACHMENTS 2-146
Page 2 of2
elevations,that the additions should be set back.
Issue 2a)The privacy issue in the back yard remains serious.As we mentioned in our
previous letters,our back yard is currently completely private.This was a selling point when
we bought the house 16 years ago and remains a valuable asset to us.There are literally no
windows of other houses visible from any portion of our back yard.If the proposed second
story is built,we would see four windows -three in the back of the Magalnic home,and one on
the side.Of the three back windows,the one closest to us (in the master bedroom)is perhaps
the most problematic.Despite being set back over a foot,it would still afford a clear view of
most of our yard,including the patio seating area.(In fact,we have a similar configuration with
one of our windows in our house,which means that we can see exactly the angle of view even
with the proposed setback.)
Possible solution to 2a)To fix this issue would require either unopenable opaque
windows or clerestory windows (above average eye level)along the back of the second
story addition.
Issue 2b)The window on the side (now,also,in the master bedroom)also appears to look
directly not only into our master bathroom,but also into our entire back yard.Even if the
window is opaque (as currently contemplated),if the window is openable,a clear view will be
presented to the detriment of our privacy.
Possible solution to 2b)To fix this issue,the window on the west side of the addition
would have to be either both opaque and fixed (not openable)or a clerestory style
(above average eye level).
There may be other solutions to these issues,but since we are not architects,we are.not in a
position to offer them.We hope the Planning Commission will fully consider our concerns in
making the decision whether or not to grant this variance.
Sincerely yours,
Paul &Diane Hayden
3/8/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-147
Existing 2-Story Houses in La Garita Neighborhood-No 2nd StOry over Garage Wing
ATTACHMENTS 2-148
~'51 7 5317 Certa Dr.,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
February 21,2011 at 2 pm
..hl\App\icel11t-:,
:5If\bm,1kd ~J ;J::;aqc y1Iitl~.o..I n,(.
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
2
-
1
4
9
0 13 f 7 5317 Certa Dr.,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
February 21,2011 at 2 pm
hl\AtP\i~l11T:
:Y.Aom;1/td ~J :J5UltlC )'iI1tt~~Y1,'C.
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
2
-
1
5
0
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:alicia_ned MORIMOTO [anmorimoto@msn.com]
Sent:Monday,February 28,20119:10 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Subject:6517 Certa Photos
Attachments:6517_Certa_LvgRm.pptx
Leza,
In case the weather does not cooperate over the week,I've attached some recent photos taken from our living
room.The most recent is from this Sunday,Feb 27.
I had a separate question.If we wanted to raise our roof over the garage so that there is an angle versus the
current flat roof,do we need to seek a permit?With all the rain,we are thinking of putting a pitch to the roof so
the water does not collect.
Ned Morimoto
3/11/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-151
."
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
2
-
1
5
2
U1
X
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
2
-
1
5
3
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
2
-
1
5
4
"
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
2
-
1
5
5
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
2
-
1
5
6
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:Connie Semos [bconmast@msn.com]
Sent:Saturday I March 12,2011 1:10 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Subject:Re:6530 La Garita Drive
March 12,2011
To the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Staff:Please do not recommend approval of the
revised plan for the property at 6530 La Garita Drive.I can appreciate anyone desiring more
living space as we are expanding our own home at this time,but the revised plan is
inappropriate,disrupting the "harmony"of the area.
This is a neighborhood of mid century ranch homes that were built in the early 1960's.Many
homes have been tastefully remodeled over the years,with sensitivity to their neighbors and
keeping within the look and feel of the neighborhood.The homes that are incongruous with
the neighborhood are glaringly obvious and stick out like warts.This plan would do exactly
that.
6530 La Garita is around the corner from my home.I walk there several time a week and
would hate to see the planned bulky massive structure there,obscuring light in the area and
hovering over the nearby homes.The proposed plan dwarfs the homes around it and takes
away the feeling of open space and light.
Though the setbacks may be allowable,the general appearance of this remodel plan is not in
any way compatible with the nearby homes or the neighborhood in general.There are many
creative ways to increase the living space in these homes.This is not one of them.
Connie Semos
Rancho Palos Verdes
'311412011 ATTACHMENTS 2-157
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail
From:BIGMACpv [bigmacpv@aol.com]
Sent:Sunday,March 13,2011 9:21 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
SUbject:Height variation and Site Plan Review (case No.ZON2010-0031)
To:Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
From:Arthur and Cheri McAllister
Subj:Height Variation and Site Plan Review (case no.ZON2010-0031)
We reside at 28067 Acana Road,about 100 feet from the home at 6530 La Garita,and are writing to request the
denial of height variances that will permit a substantial,and in our opinion,inappropriate,expansion of this home.
Acana Road t-bones into La Garita in front of that home,and my wife and I pass by several times daily.We have
been watching the construction flags with apprehension,and are convinced that the proposed addition is not only
architecturally inconsistent with the neighborhood,but also will present us with a very unattractive view each time
we walk or drive by.
We have lived here since 1978,and have watched our neighborhood mature over the years.We do not have a
fundamental issue with second-story expansions,when that expansion will enhance both the neighbor's home
and the neighborhood.We are unhappy with the prospect of the second story at 6530 La Garita,as we feel it will
enhance neither that home nor the neighborhood.
Very truly yours,
Arthur and Cheri McAllister
28067 Acana Road
3/14/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-158
To whom it may concern,
We are the resident at 6525 Certa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes.We are protesting against
building any second story addition on the property located at 6530 La Greta Drive.We don't like
to see a roof from our back yard.It is bad for us and bad for the beauty of our neighborhood.I
have seen what happen to a neighborhood once the city allow everyone to over build their home
with the second stories.It would also make it very difficult and unreasonable for our future
appraisal in case of refinancing or purchasing any home in this area.We like the look of our area
and that is why I bought our home here over 15 years ago.We would greatly appreciate it if the
City Planner rejects the above case.
Sincerely,
Tony Nafissi
Cell:310.408.0333
tonynafissi@prusouthbay.col11
RECEIVED
MAR 14 2011
p~~~~G.BUILDING AND
ENFORCEMENT
ATTACHMENTS 2-159
In regards to the new construction at 6530 La Garita Drive (CASE NO.ZON2010-00331),I believe
the completed project would constitute a structure that is out of character,style and scale as
compared to the other residences in the immediate area.
The height,style and character of the new structure are entirely out of line with the rest of the
houses in the neighborhood.The immediate neighborhood is comprised of houses built to the
"Ranch"style in the early sixties.As defined in Wikipedia.com and about.com,the
characteristics ofthis style include:"Single Story";"Close to the ground profile";and "Low
pitched roof",among others.In my opinion,it is the low profile nature of the houses in the area
that creates the casual,open-air atmosphere in the neighborhood that we now enjoy.The
proposed project height,look and feel would change this characteristic of our block.
On a more personal note,the front of my house faces east while the rear faces west toward the
subject property.The block,in which both my property and the subject property is included,is
bordered by Lomo Drive at the east,La Garita Drive at the north,Certa Drive at the west and
Ella Drive at the west.It is a unique aspect ofthe placement ofthe houses in the block that,
with the exception of our immediate neighbor to my left,only the rooftops of the houses in the
block are visible from my back yard looking west.This has accorded us with a very pleasant
scene when looking west with only trees,rooftops and the sky above the horizon visible.This
unique scenario has been made possible primarily by the low-slung,close to the ground
characteristics of the Ranch style homes on the block.When completed,the subject property
will be in clear view from my backyard.
Sincerely,
Alan Valukonis
28111 Lomo Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ATTACHMENTS 2-160
Page 1 of 1
Abigail Harwell
Subject:FW:HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.ZON2010-00331)
From:Jesse Im [mailto:bugonmyleaf@yahoo.com]
Sent:Tuesday,March 15,2011 10:56 AM
To:pc@rpv.com;lezam@rpv.com
Subject:Fw:HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.ZON2010-00331)
Dear Leza Mikhail,
My name is Jesse 1m.As 1 drive through my neighborhood on the daily basis,1 see houses around me
with very unnatural and unattractive second story additions.As an individual working in the architecture
field,this makes me sad.1 am also concern about how my neighborhood will be more about the badly
designed add-ons vs.single story houses coexisting with the surrounding natures.This proposal will
lead others to just enlarge their property for the profit and sooner or later,this area will look like any
other beach communities with tall houses cramped together with no privacy.
Thank you.
Jesse 1m
28051 Acana Rd.RPV
3/15/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-161
P.c.Staff Report April 12,2011
ATTACHMENTS 2-162
SUBJECT:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR:--ll ("~
APRIL 12,2011 ~
HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.2010-
00331);PROJECT ADDRESS -6530 LA GARITA (LANDOWNER-
ISAAC MAGALNIC),_
Staff Coordinator:Leza Mikhail,Associate Plann{f
RECOMMENDATION
Continue the public hearing to the April 26,2011 meeting.
DISCUSSION
On September 20,2010,the applicant submitted a Height Variation and Site Plan Review
application to the Community Development Department for review and processing.The
applicant requested approval to construct a 131 square foot first floor addition and a 1,467
square foot second floor addition.
On February 8,2011,the application was heard by the Planning Commission.At the
meeting,the Planning Commission heard testimony from a number of neighbors regarding
privacy impacts,bulk and mass issues related to a second-story addition,and potential
view impairment from properties along Santoma and Certa Drive.After hearing the public
testimony,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 22,2011 to
allow the Applicant to modify the design of the project with direction to lower the roofline 4'-
0",reduce the second story setback from the front,sides and rear and reduce potential
privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbors.The Planning Commission also requested that
Staff visit 6517 Certa to cond uct a view analysis based on a photograph submitted to Staff
just prior to the February 8,2011 Planning Commission meeting.
Since the February 8,2011 Planning Commission meeting,the Applicant has revised the
project in an attempt to meet the Planning Commission's concerns.Staff has not been able
to visit 6517 Certa Drive (the Morimoto's)due to a lack of clear days,Staff's inability to
access the property during work hours and scheduling conflicts.Staff has coordinated with
the Morimoto's and emphasized the need to visit the property and conduct a view analysis
on a clear day.The Morimoto's have been contacting Staff almost every day regarding the
view and have noted that the view was not discernable at the time.The Morimoto's have
ATTACHMENTS 2-163
P.C.Staff Report (Case No.ZON2010-00331)
April 12,2011
Page 2
committed to working with Staff to accommodate access to their viewing area prior to the
next Planning Commission meeting.
Staff has notified the applicant that access on a clear day to the Morimoto's property has
been unsuccessful and discussed continuing the project again to the April 26,2011
Planning Commission meeting.The applicant is aware and agrees to Staff's recommended
continuance in an effort to resolve any potential view impacts to surrounding neighbors.
Since Staff is requesting additional time to conduct a view analysis and the applicant has
agreed to a continuance,Staff is recommending that the public hearing be continued to the
April 26,2011 Planning Commission meeting.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Corre§Qcmdence
Any correspondence received after the release of this report and prior to the April 12,2011
Planning Commission meeting will be included in the April 26,2011 Planning Commission
Staff Report.
Permit Streamlining Act
The original decision deadline for the proposed project was February 14,2011.The
property owner verbally agreed to a gO-day extension at the February 8,2011 Planning
Commission meeting,making the new decision deadline May 15,2011.
ATTACHMENTS 2-164
Late Correspondence
ATTACHMENTS 2-165
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail .---_._---,---------------
From:Jolie Hughes Uamhughes@hotmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday,February 02,2011 1:26 PM
To:lezam@rpv.com
Subject:6530 La Garita proposal
Dear Ms.Mikhail,
We fear we may be a day too late,but still wanted to send a note regarding the proposed addition at 6530 La
Garita.As homeowners at 28057 Acana Road,we are close neighbors to the proposed addition on La Garita,and
ask that the planning department deny approval of a project of this size.
We moved our young family into this neighborhood 13 years ago precisely because of the modest,single level
homes that are sized appropriately for their lot size.We had also looked in Orange County and found the
"McMansions"of large homes on small lots unappealing.We would ask that our neighborhood be allowed to
maintain its well-proportioned and size-appropriate feel.Each project of this type (added story with overly-large
increase in square footage on a lot designed for a single story)would only lead to more compatibles in the
neighborhood for future proposed oversized additions and eventually the loss of a lovely Rancho Palos Verdes
neighborhood.Please stop this from happening by denying this project.
Sincerely,
Michael and Jolie Hughes
28057 Acana Road
2/2/2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-166
RECE\\lElJ
fEB 08 2~·\\
ptANN\NG.5U\\.D\NG AND
CODE ENfORCEMENl
Re:Case No.ZON20iO-00331/6530 La Garita
Illustration of how any second story addition over the garage wing of 6530 La Garita Dr encroaches on the 6538 front yard
"..,..,/~?'
·~···I--...~
9;.<:
"..,
,-~~
:~~.:)'
This means is that if either of the houses in the middle pair builds out
over their garage,that second story will encroach visually
into the "open ls"of the houses on either side.
This is precisely the case with
the Magalnic's proposal.
As you can see,there are only six houses on la Garita Drive,situated as three matched pairs.
The two end pairs are juxtaposed so that the garage wings of their houses are back to back.In essence,
the houses don't face each other.
The houses in the middle pair are facing each other,juxtaposing the main wings
of the houses,that is,their "ls"open towards each other.
~~~-";'
•.....T;:~-_":~..,,•.~.<i \i:"
r'U.1
,/
't·....J~:"~;'\........
.\,>~',>;",';-~>
l"
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
2
-
1
6
7
ATTACHMENTS 2-168
6538 La Garita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
February 5,2011
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Case No.ZON2010-00331/6530 La Garita
To the Planning Commission:
This letter amends our earlier letter of January 31 concerning the proposed
second-story addition to our next-door neighbors'house,in light of the Staff Report
dated February 8,2011,which recommends denial of the Height Variation and Site Plan
Review without prejudice.Because the recommendation contemplates that the
applicant will be able to modify and resubmit the plan,we believe we must again write
and clarify our objections,which were not fully addressed in the Staff Report.
Specifically,as we said in our earlier letter,we have two major concerns:(1)the
extension of the second-story addition beyond the plane of the main house,extending
toward the street over the wing of the house containing the garage and (2)the
significant loss of privacy in our back yard.
Clarification on the Front
Regarding the front of the house,the staff found,citing Municipal Code Section
17.02.040(C)(1),finding 8 (general compatibility with neighborhood character),that "the
rear portion of the second story continues to appear bulky and massive as seen from the
front and rear yards of the neighboring properties just east and west of the subject
property."Our house is the west-neighboring property,and while we agree with the
Staff's bottom line on this finding,we don't believe the "bulky and massive"appearance
is caused only by the rear portion of the second story;it is caused also by the extension
of the second story towards the street,over the "garage wing"of the house.This
situation is worsened by the fact that the trees have been trimmed for years to a
maximum height of sixteen feet.
In addition,the configuration of our L-shaped ranch houses exacerbates the
bulky mass of the second-story addition because it extends out along the open side of
our lot,not along our garage wing.
ATTACHMENTS 2-169
We walked the entire neighborhood today and found that there is not a single
house that has a second story that extends beyond the plane of the main house.This
includes every single house on La Garita,Ella Road,Certa,and Acana.We attach
photographs of most of the two-story houses in the neighborhood to make this point.
The extension of the second story over the garage wing and towards the street is,
therefore,clearly not compatible with the character of the neighborhood.See page 1 of
attached photos.
We have a second objection to this front extension,not addressed at all in the
Report,and that is that it will significantly impair our privacy in the front of our house.
The outside,front entrance area to our house can currently be seen at all only from one
other house,which sits over 80 yards away (the Yocum house on Acana);the rest of
that part of the front yard,which includes a small garden,a sitting "porch"area, and the
windows to a bathroom,two bedrooms and a home office/kitchen,is now completely
private,except for the occasional passerby.If the front extension of the second story
goes in as planned and contains any kind of window,that window will look directly into
that formerly-private space from just a few feet away.See page 2 of attached photos.
Clarification on the Back
Regarding our back-yard privacy,the staff found,citing finding 9 ("unreasonable
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences"),that the proposed
addition does indeed impinge our privacy.However,we believe the Report inaccurately
characterizes both the degree of that privacy impingement and possible mitigating steps
that would supposedly solve the problem.Specifically,the Report notes on page 10 that
"the windows along the south facade (rear facade)of Bedroom #1 would create a
privacy impact into the east neighbor's [the Watsons']rear yard.The window along the
rear facade and west side facade of the Master Bedroom would create a slight privacy
impact to the property located to the west of the subject property."
Our objection here is to the use of the word "slight."We enclose photographs
taken of the flags on the proposed second story taken from various points in our back
yard.Clearly any window on either the rear or west facades would have a clear view
into our entire yard;indeed this privacy invasion is far more significant than we thought
before the flags went up.There would be no portion of our yard that would be shielded
from windows -whereas now we cannot be seen from any window of any house.We
would not raise this issue at all (given the Staff's bottom-line recommendation),except
that the Report goes on to say that "if the windows were designed to be clerestory or
opaque,"this privacy concern would "be reduced to a less than significant leveL"For this
to be true,even opaque windows would have to be designed so as not to open,and any
clerestory windows would have to be placed so that no person inside the subject house
could see out at all.See page 2 of attached photos.
ATTACHMENTS 2-170
Conclusion
We hope that you will accord adequate consideration to our backyard privacy
concerns and,if a second story addition is approved for the Magalnics,it will stay behind
the plane of the main portion of the house like all the other one-and two-story houses in
the neighborhood.
Thank you again for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely yours,
Paul &Diane Hayden
(310)544-1051
ATTACHMENTS 2-171
Front Yard Views from 6538 La Garita Dr.-Mass and Privacy Intrusion of Proposal
Back Yard Views from 6538 La Garita Dr.-Mass and Privacy Intrusion of Proposal
ATTACHMENTS 2-172
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Ms.Mikhail,
Tony Nafissi [tonyhafissi@prusouthbay.com]
Thursday,February 03,2011 8:56 PM
lezam@rpv.com
elruddick@cox.net
Re:Case No.ZON2010-00331
We are the resident at 6525 Certa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes.We are protesting against building any second
story addition on the property located at 6530 La Greta Drive.We don't like to see a roof from our back yard.It
is bad for us and bad for the beauty of our neighborhood.I have been in real estate for over 20 years and I have
seen what happen to a neighborhood once the city allow everyone to over build their home.It would also make
it confusing and very difficult for our future appraisal value in case of refinancing or selling it.We like the look
of our area and that is why I bought our home here over 15 years ago.We would greatly appreciate it if you guys
reject the above case.
Sincerely,
Tony Nafissi
Cell:310.408.0333
tonynafissi@prusouthbay.com <mailto :tonynafissi@prusouthbay.com>
1
ATTACHMENTS 2-173
~A/u 2-0#~Cl/L){]}(J331
FIZ,jJJ1/~1l/.5E .Lfl~/1-!VPE
.:2??'CJ "3 /a~~
R,If?I/.0 A-9tJ ;:z 75:;-
RECEIVED
FEB 04 2011
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
ATTACHMENTS 2-174
-----Original Message-----
From:Nelsongang@aol.com [mailL~:Nelsongang@aol.com]
Sent:Wednesday,March 16,2011 8:58 PM
To:planning@rpv.com
Subject:Re;3/22/11 Agenda
>From the guy Wolowicz had the cohunes to publicly call 'RPV Cancer and
spreading'and was part of RPV's 72%of 'No'vote to your Prop C:
re 3/22/11 Agenda Items:
Items 1,2:Height Variations:Go with 'Staff.'
Item 3:Green Hills!The 'Community Development'director is wrong.May he
rest in peace!Of course,if you vote 'yes,'may you also!
Item 4:General Plan changes:Think.Are you going to vote (again)to change
our founding document (and expect voters to favor you and you past anti-GP
decisions?-swell,expect to state your individual 'why'during fall
election).Even if Tom Redfield spent 11 hours 'vetting'ie:
cross-examining,.you!He and CHOA (now a PAC)are now a miniscule part of
RPV.
Anyway,think about how the electorate will react to your current,past and
future decisions.Time to be trustworthy,respectful and transparent and
attempt to get votes.
But,of course,it's your call.Just think about Jeff Lewis showing you your
election results during your meeting election night!Think!We,your
electorate,are watching and voting!
Thank you!No need to respond - I understand your problem,aka Council
backing.
Bob Nelson
310-544-4632
ATTACHMENTS 2-175
March 12,2011
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning,Building,&Code Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
RECEIVED
MAR 15 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Garry &Jeanette Yefsky
28056 Ella Road
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:Case No.:
Location:
Property Owner:
ZON2010-00331
6530 La Garita
Issac Magalnic
Dear Representatives of the Planning Commission:
We have become aware that the 6530 La Garita residence has been reflagged to reflect
changes in the scale of the proposed addition.When we have looked at the residence it
does not appear that any significant downsizing of this addition has occurred.In fact,we
did not know it had been reflagged and that a hearing on the changes was scheduled until
we were told that it occurred by a neighbor.
Our thoughts about this proposed addition have not changed.Our neighborhood is
primarily a one-story neighborhood.The size,height,and footprint of this addition on a
relatively small lot still will detract significantly from the privacy of others.The size,
bulk,and scale of this addition are still not consistent with the homes within our
neighborhood.What is confounding is that the 21 foot height of the proposed addition
exceeds the 16 foot height limit for trees that the city has imposed on property owners in
that very same area.How does providing a variance for this structure support other
property owner's rights for view maintenance?
Please consider our above objections before you take any further action toward approving
this addition.We walk and drive down La Garita multiple times on a daily basis.We
would like to see La Garita maintain its single story appearance and for our fellow
.neighbors to be able to maintain the privacy that attracted them to their homes in the first
place.We empathize with the neighbors who reside immediately adjacent to this addition
and hope that we would not have to be in their position someday.Thank you for all your
consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
E:~~
ATTACHMENTS 2-176
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
SUbject:
paul_czaplicki@cox.net
Sunday,March 20,2011 3:05 PM
LezaM@rpv.com
HEIGHT VARIATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.ZON2010-00331)
HEIGHT VARlATION &SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.ZON20 10-00331)
Ms.Mikhail
Regarding the case above,I am writing to ask that the Staff recommend to the Planning Commission a denial of
the height variance for this proposed project.Even with the modifications,it is my belief that this project still
retains significant problems.
1.Privacy
•This project would totally eliminate any semblance of privacy in my backyard.The design,of
both the original and the revised structure,will look down into my back yard.Standing in my yard,I can clearly
see the entire upper portion of the framework.
2.Design
•Even with the design revision,I do not feel that this proposed expansion is compatible with the
design of the neighborhood.At the end of the day,this is still proposing a large,bulky home design inconsistent
with the majority of the homes in the area.
Best Regards,
Paul Czaplicki
6537 Certa Drive
1
ATTACHMENTS 2-177
Kathryn Stinis &Ted Stinis
28069 Ella Rd.
R.P.V.,Ca.
To the Planning Commission
April 5,2011
RECEIVED
APR 05 2011
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
I have been concerned about the proposed second story addition planned for 6530
La Garita Drive,but only recently found out that I could relay my concerns to you
Through written correspondence.I hope that I am not too late.
I feel that the proposed structure is too large for the neighborhood and completely
inconsistent with its character.
We moved to this neighborhood 35 years ago,choosing it because of its uncongested
environment.The neighborhood is comfortably scaled for single story homes.Adding
large two-story structures would only increase the density and degrade the pleasant
ambiance of the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Ted &Kathryn Stinis
?ar~
r.i>(~:
ATTACHMENTS 2-178
Guidelines and Procedures for
Preservation of Views Where Structures
are Involved
ATTACHMENTS 2-179
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES
FOR
PRESERVATION OF VIEWS WHERE
STRUCTURES ARE INVOLVED
(HEIGHT VARIATION PERMITS)
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ADOPTED ON AUGUST 23,1993
AMENDED ON DECEMBER 6,1996,MAY 6,2003 AND APRil 20,2004
Page 20
ATTACHMENTS 2-180
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.PURPOSE
A.
IV.EARLY NEIGHBOR CONSULTATION
VII.SETBACKS FOR SLOPING LOTS
x.HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT PROCEDURES
A.Height Variation Permit Application
B.Height Variation Permit Process
Page
1
1
3
9
14
14
14
Page 21
ATTACHMENTS 2-181
Height Variation Guidelines
April 20,2004
I.PURPOSE
The intent of this document is to provide guidelines and procedures for protecting
views which may be impaired by development of new residential structures or additions to
existing residential structures.As specified in Proposition M,which was passed by the voters of
Rancho Palos Verdes and became effective an November 17,1989,the purposes for the
regulations are to:
a.Protect,enhance and perpetuate views available to property owners and
visitors because of the unique topographical features of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.These
views provide unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighboring communities and
provide for this and future generations examples of the unique physical surroundings which are
characteristic of the City.
b.Define and protect finite visual resources by establishing limits which
construction and plant growth can attain before encroaching onto a view.
c.Insure that the development of each parcel of land or additions to
residences or structures occur in a manner which is harmonious and maintains neighborhood
compatibility and the character of contiguous subcommunity development in the General Plan.
d.Require the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which alone,or in
conjunction with construction,exceeds defined limits.
These guidelines and procedures apply to any person proposing to constmct a
residential structure above the sixteen foot height limit,as defined in section 17.02.040 of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,except that paragraph H of Section 2 -Removal of
Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance,applies to any residential structure,regardless of
height.The 16-foot height limit is commonly referred to as the "by-right"height limit,proviaed
that no grading,as defined in section 17.76.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,is
to be performed in connection with the proposed construction and all applicable residential
development standards are or will be met.
II.DEFINITIONS
A.Viewing Area
Section 17.02.040 (A)(15)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code defines
"viewing area"as follows:
'''Viewing area'means that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms,
hallways,garages or closets)or that area of a lot (excluding the setback areas)where the
owner and City determine the best and most important view exists.In structures,the
finished floor elevation of any viewing area must be at or above the existing grade
adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest to said viewing area.II
Page 22
ATTACHMENTS 2-182
Height Variation Guidelines
April 20,2004
B.Section 17.02.040(A)(14)of the Municipal Code defines "View"as follows:
liOn the Palos Verdes Peninsula,it is quite common to have a near view
and a far view because of the nature of many of the hills on the peninsula.Therefore,a
'view'which is protected by this Section is as follows:
"a. A 'near view'which is defined as a scene located on the peninsula
including,but not limited to,a valley,ravine,equestrian trail,pastoral
environment or any natural setting;and/or
lib.A 'far view'which is defined as a scene located off the peninsula
including,but not limited to,the ocean,Los Angeles basin,city lights at
night,harbor,Vincent Thomas Bridge,shoreline or off-shore islands.
"A 'View'which is protected by this Section shall not include vacant land that is
developable under the city code,distant mountain areas not normally visible nor
the sky,either above distant mountain areas or above the height of off-shore
islands.A 'View'may extend in any horizontal direction (three hundred and sixty
degrees of horizonal arc)and shall be considered as a single view even if broken
into segments by foliage,structures or other interference.II
III.ESTABLISHING THE VIEWING AREA
A.Section 17.02.040 (B)(5)establishes the procedure for determining the
"viewing area"as follows:
The determination of iii viewing area shall be 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.Once finally determined for a particular application,the viewing
area may not be changed for any SUbsequent application.In the event the city and owner
cannot agree on the viewing area,the decision of the city shall control.A property owner
may appeal the determination of viewing area.In such event,the decision on the viewing
area will be made by the body making the final decision on the application.A property
owner may preserve his or her right to dispute the decision on viewing area for a
subsequent application without disputing the decision on a pending application by filing
a statement to that effect and indicating the viewing area the property owner believes to
be more appropriate.The statement shall be filed with the city prior to consideration of
the pending application by the City.
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",
1.On undeveloped lots,the viewing area may include all of the areas of the
lot,excluding the required setback areas.
Page 23
ATTACHMENTS 2-183
Height Varl...·!on Guidelines
April 20,2004
2.On developed lots,the "viewing area"may be located on any level
surface within the house (excluding bathrooms,closets,hallways or garages)which is at or
above the existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall.of the part of the building nearest to the
"viewing area"or within the buildable area of the lot.A viewing area may be located on a patio,
deck,balcony or lawn area which is adjacent to the primary structure (generally within 10 feet)
and which is located on the same general grade on the lot as the primary structure,excluding
the required setback areas and used as a gathering area.In determining the viewing area ona
developed lot,greater weight generally will be given to locations within the primary structure
where a view is taken than to locations outside of the primary structure where a view is taken,
unless no view is taken from within the primary structure.
3.On properties where the applicant claims that he or she has a view from
one or more locations either within or outside of the primary structure,it must be determined
where the best and most important view is taken to determine the "viewing area"which is to be
protected.The "viewing area"may only include multiple rooms or locations on the applicant's
property if those locations share the same view.
4.The "viewing area"may only be located on a second (or higher)story of a
structure if:
a.The construction of that portion of the structure did not require
approval of a Height Variation Permit or Variance,pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code,or would not have required such a permit if that Section had
been in effect at the time that portion of the structure was constructed;or
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.
5.In documenting the views,Staff will usually conduct their view analyses in
a natural standing position.In those cases where the view is only enjoyed from a seated
position,Staff will verify if that is the case,and if so,will conduct the view analysis from the
seated position in that area at a height of not less than three (3)feet,six (6)inches,up to a full
standing position.
IV.EARLY NEIGHBOR CONSULTATION
Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(b)of the Municipal Code requires that,for all proposed
Height Variations:
"The applicant shall take reasonable steps established by the City Council
to consult with owners of property located within 500 feet of the applicant's
property.The applicant shall obtain and submit with the application the
signatures of the persons with whom the applicant consulted.Where a
homeowners'association exists in the neighborhood affected and has
provided written notice to the Director of its desire to be notified of Height
Page 24
ATTACHMENTS 2-184
Height Variation Guidelines
April 20,2004
Variation applications,the applicant shall mail a letter to the association
requesting their position on the application.A copy of this letter and the
response of the association,if any,shall be submitted with the
application.II
Early neighbor consultation may be deemed adequate by the Director of Planning,Building,and
Code Enforcement only if 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;or if mailed proof of notification of all
landowners within 500 feet is provided,as well as proof of notification of the homeowners'
association,if one exists.The required percentages stated above shall be based on property
located in the City.An applicant is not required to obtain signatures from the owners of property
that are located outside the City boundary limits (ie.Palos Verdes Estates,Rolling Hills Estates,
etc.).Fewer signatures may be deemed adequate by the Director if other evidence of early
neighbor consultation is provided.
Acceptable efforts for obtaining the necessary signatures for satisfying the "early
neighbor consultation"requirements shall include at least one of the following,as outlined
below:
A.Direct Contact
1.Door-to-door contact with the landowners within 500 feet,
describing the proposed project and showing and explaining plans.Verification of thiacontact
shall be provided by obtaining signatures from the landowners (signatures from renters or
lessees are unacceptable)on the attached Acknowledgement of Proposed Construction form
available from the City (no exceptions).The form indicates that the intent of the signature
process is to acknowledge that the landowner has been made
aware of the applicant's intentions,and is not meant to signify support of the project.The form
also delineates what project plans,if any,were exhibited to the landowners.Landowners must
acknowledge that they have seen a depiction of the project which reasonably describes the
applicant's proposal,in order for their signature to qualify towards the required percentage
totals.
2.Holding an "Open House"to inform landowners of the proposed
plans,with previous written or oral invitations to the potentially affected property owners.
Verification of this contact shall be provided as described above.
B.Mailing
Only as a last resort,if the previous two methods have not been proven
satisfactory,proof of notification may consist of a notice and reduced copies of the depiction of
the project (no larger than 8 1/2"x 14")sent by the applicant by registered mail to all
landowners within 500 feet of the subject property,or by providing addressed,stamped/pre-paid
postage envelopes,a copy of the mailing list,reduced copies of the plans,and a letter with a
description of the proposed project,along with a $10.00 fee,to the City for mailing.Using this
method must be approved by the Director of Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement.
Page 25
ATTACHMENTS 2-185
Height Variation Guidelines
April 20,2004
In addition to contacting the neighbors,a letter to the area's homeowners
association requesting their opinion on the proposal,if any,shall be mailed.
Please note that in addition to completing the Early Neighborhood Consultation requirements
stated herein,the City strongly encourages applicants proposing a project that includes the
Neighborhood Compatibility analysis,such as a Height Variation application,to complete a "Pre-
application Process."
The Neighborhood Compatibility "Pre-application Process"is a voluntary step in the residential
development process that has been found to be helpful in addressing neighborhood issues early
in the process,which may cause delays in the formal process and added expense to the
applicant.
For further information regarding the suggested "Pre-application Process"please refer to
Planning Staff,the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook available at Planning Department at
City Hall,or the City's Website at www.palosverdes.com/rpv.
V.TEMPORARY SILHOUETTE FRAME
Section 17.02.040(C)(1 )(d)of the Municipal Code states that:
"The applicant shall construct on the site at the applicant's expense,as a
visual aid,a temporary frame of the proposed structure.
1.The temporary silhouette shall,at a minimum,consist of wood posts (or
other sturdy and rigid material -2"x 4"s are typical)at all corners of the structure(s)and at
either end of all proposed ridgelines,with a taut rope (of 1/2"diameter)marked with triangular
flagging (ribbons are not acceptable)'connecting the posts (see attached diagram).
2.The top one foot of the posts shall be painted red or orange to better
demarcate the height of the proposed structure in photo analyses,and a similar mark shall be
placed using a different,but equally visible color on the posts at the 16-foot height limit,as
measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(6).Please consult with your case planner regarding
the applicable method for determining the 16-foot height limit.
3.The temporary silhouette frame can only be erected after the waiver form,
which absolves the City of any liability associated with construction of.or damage by the
temporary silhouette frame,has been submitted to the Director by the applicant.The waiver
form (see attached)must be submitted along with the application package.In order to minimize
costs involved in constructing a certified silhouette,it is advised that a property owner not
construct the required certified silhouette until directed to do so by the case planner assigned to
the project.This is recommended because a project may undergo revisions before being
deemed complete for processing.Once given direction to construct the certified silhouette,the
applicant shall notify the City when the silhouette is in place.
Furthermore,once the silhouette is constructed,a licensed engineer or architect shall certify
that the silhouette accurately depicts the location and height (including the color demarcation of
the silhouette posts)of the proposed development.The reqUired certification form (see
Page 26
ATTACHMENTS 2-186
Height Variation Guidelines
April 20,2004
attachment)must be accompanied by a site plan that identifies the location of the silhouette
posts,the existing grade elevation call-outs at the base of the posts (if posts touch existing
grade),and the elevation call-outs for the top of the posts.If the silhouette is constructed
entirely above an existing structure so that the posts supporting the silhouette do not touch
existing grade,then the site plan must include the existing grade elevation closest to the
existing structure and the supporting silhouette posts.A project will not be deemed
"complete"for processing without the certification.
4.Staff will conduct a site inspection to review the adequacy of the
silhouette's depiction of the proposed project.Adequacy will be based on an accurate depiction
of the proposed project's envelope,accurate delineation of ridgelines,and the proper triangular
flagging.Ribbons or other materials which tend to bend or sag are not acceptable.An
application will not be considered "complete"for processing without an adequately constructed
silhouette in place.
5.The frame must remain in place and be maintained in good condition
throughout the required notice period for the Height Variation application or the
Neighborhood Compatibility analysis process.the decision process and,if necessary,
any appeal periods.The frame may not be removed until the City's appeal process has been
exhausted and a final decision has been rendered.The applicant must remove the frame
within seven (7)days after a final decision has been rendered and the City's appeal
process has been exhausted..
VI.BUILDING HEIGHT
1.Proposed residential building height cannot exceed 26 feet.If a greater
height is desired,a Variance application is required,rather than a Height Variation Permit.
Section 17.02.040(B)(1')ofthe Municipal Code states that:
II Any individual or persons desiring to build a new structure or an addition
to an existing structure shall be permitted to build up to sixteen feet in
height pursuant to Section 17.02.040(B)of this Chapter provided there is no
grading,as defined in Section 17.76.040 of this Chapter,to be performed in
connection with the proposed construction,and further prOVided that no
Height Variation is required,and all applicable residential development
standards are or will be met.In cases where an existing structure is
voluntarily demolished or is demolished as a result of an involuntary event,
a Height Variation application will not be required to exceed sixteen feet in
height,provided that the replacement structure will have the same or less
square footage and building height as the eXisting structure and will be
reconstructed within the building envelope and footprint of the pre-existing
structure.Approval for proposed structures or additions to existing
structures exceeding sixteen feet in height,may be sought through
application for a Height Variation permit,Which,if granted pursuant to the
procedures contained herein,will permit the individual to build a structure
not exceeding twenty-six feet in height,except as prOVided in Section
17.02.040(B)(1)(d)of this chapter,or such lower height as approved by the
city,measured as follows:.II
Page 27
ATTACHMENTS 2-187
Height Variation Guidelines
April 20,2004
2.Height is measured based on whether the subject lot is considered an
uphill,downhill,or other (pad)lot relative to the street of access,and based on the extent to
which the structure slopes with the lot.Section 17.012.040(8)(1)of the Code defines height
measurements as follows:
(a)"For sloping lots which slope uphill from the street of access or in the
same direction as the street of access and for which no building pad
exists,the height shall be measured from the pre-construction (existing)
grade at the highest point on the lot to be covered by the structure to the
ridgeline or the highest point of the structure."(Uphill Sloping Lot figure
on next page):
f~I
(b)"For sloping lots which slope downhill from the street of access and for
which no building paq'eXists,the height shall be measured from the
average elevation of the setback line abutting the street of access to the
ridge line of the highest point of the structure."Lots sloping downhill,are
defined as those with a minimum slope of greater than 5%over the width
or length of the buildable area (whichever is the downhill direction).
Page 26
ATTACHMENTS 2-188
Height Variation Guidelines
April 20,2004
(c)"For lots with a "building pad"at street level or at a different level than the
street or lot configurations not previously discussed,the height shall be
measured from the pre-construction (existing)grade at the highest elevation
of the existing building pad area covered by the structure to the ridge line or
highest point of the structure.Portions of a structure which extend beyond
the "building pad"area of a lot shall not qualify as the highest elevation
covered by the structure,for the purposes of determining maximum building
height.Structures allowed pursuant to this subsection"shall not exceed
twenty (20)feet in height,as measured from the point where the lowest
foundation or slab meets finished grade,to the ridgeline or highest point of
the structure.Otherwise,a Height Variation Permit shall be required."(Pad
Lot figure below):
.r4f.~~~~~
:r:1&f4~
(d)"On sloping lots described in sections 17.02.040(8)(1)(a)and
17.02.040(8)(1 )(b),the foundation of the structure shall contain a
minimum eight (8)foot step with the slope of the lot.However,no portion
of the structure shall exceed thirty (30)feet in height,when measured
from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade
to the ridge line or highest point of the structure.The thirty (30)foot
height shall not exceed a horizontally projected sixteen (16)foot height
line (from the high point of the uphill step of the structure)."(See figure
below):If there is not a minimum eight (8)foot step in the structure's
foundation,a Height Variation Permit and/or a Variance will be required.
Page 29
ATTACHMENTS 2-189
Height Variation Guideline_
April 20,2004
VII.SETBACKS FOR SLOPING LOTS
Section 17.02.040(8)(2)of the Municipal Code requires that:
"On lots sloping uphill from the street of access and where the height of a
structure is in excess of sixteen (16)feet above the point where the lowest
foundation or slab meets the ground,areas in excess of the sixteen (16)
foot height limit shall be set back one (1)foot from the exterior building
facade of the first story,most parallel and closest to the front property line,
for every foot of height in excess of sixteen (16)feet,as measured from the
point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the ground.II
This provision applies to uphill lots only and covers height at any point on the structure in
excess of 16 feet above the grade at the downslope side of the structure.The figure below
(Height Setbacks)illustrates how a structure would need to fit within the stepped-back setback
envelope.
Jt
I
VIII.CRITERIA FOR REVIEW
A.Administrative or Planning Commission Review
Section 17.02.040(C)(1)prOVides criteria for the initial review of Height Variation
applications by either the Director of Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement or the Planning
Commission.
1."Any person proposing to construct a structure above sixteen
(16)feet shall submit a Height Variation Permit application to the City.A determination
on the application shall be made by the Director in accordance with the findings
described in Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e).The Director shall refer an application for a
Height Variation Permit directly to the Planning Commission for consideration under the
same findings,as part of a public hearing,if any of the following is proposed:
Page 30
ATTACHMENTS 2-190
Height Variation Guide...les
April 20,2004
a.Any portion of a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet
in height extends closer than twenty-five (25)feet from the front or street-side property
line;or
b.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet
in height (the second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent (75%)of the existing
first story footprint area (residence and attached garage);
c.Sixty percent (60%)or more of an existing garage footprint
is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height (a second story);or
d.The portion of a structure that exceeds sixteen feet in
height is being developed as part of a new single-family residence;or
e.Based on an initial site Visit,the Director determines that
any portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen (16)feet in height may
significantly impair a view as defined in this chapter."
IX.MANDATORY FINDINGS
Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e)of the Municipal Code requires a Height Variation
Permit be issued to build a new structure or an addition to an eXisting structure either of which
exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height up to the maximum height permitted in section
17.02.040(8)(1),ifthe City can make the following nine mandatory findings:
1.''The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation
process established by the City."
Staff will review the submittal to be sure that the methods of early neighbor
conSUltation,as outlined above on pages 4 and 5 of these Guidelines,are adequate.
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."
Any public park or right-of way will be considered for view analysis under this
provision.Other sites will be limited to those specifically delineated in the General Plan,Coastal
Specific Plan,or areas specifically set aside as public viewing areas."Significantly impair"is
defined in section (6)below.
3."The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory."
A ridge is defined in Section 17.96.1550 as "an elongated crest or a linear series
of crests of hills,bluffs,or highlands".A promontory is defined in Section 17.96.1420 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".The analysis of ridges and promontories
relates to protection of pUblic views and vistas overlooking or looking up at ridges or
promontories.The Director or Planning Commission will make a determination as to the degree
Page 31
ATTACHMENTS 2-191
Height Variation Guidelines
April 20,2004
of visual impact associated with construction over 16 feet in height on a "ridge or promontory"
when viewed from a park,pUblic roadway,or a designated public viewing point.
The "ridge or promontory"must be prominent in relation to the 16 to 26 foot
range of heights permitted under the Height Variation Permit process.Geologic structures
which would not be noticeable in relation to the size of the proposed structure probably will not
be affected by development of a proposed structure,and accordingly no public view benefit
would be provided by prohibiting construction on such ridges or promontories.
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 this Chapter,when considered exclusive of existing
foliage,does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.If
the viewing area is located in a structure,the viewing area shall be located in a portion of
a structure which was constructed without a height variation permit or variance,or which
would not have required a height variation or variance when originally constructed had
this section,as approved by the voters on November 7,1989,been in effect at the time
the structure was constructed,unless the viewing area located in the portion of the
existing structure which required a height variation permit or variance constitutes the
primary living area (living room,family room,dining room or kitchen)of the residence;
(a)"Significant view impairment"will be determined by the Director or
Planning Commission based on (a)the severity (extent,magnitude,etc.)of impairment of an
existing view,and/or (b)the impairment of features of significance,including but not limited to
Catalina Island and other offshore islands,Point Fermin or other notable coastal promontories,
or the Vincent Thomas bridge or other prominent manmade landmarks,etc.
(b)The "viewing area"may only be located on a second (or higher)
story of a structure if:
i.The construction of that portion of the structure did not require approval of a
Height Variation Permit or Variance,pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,or would not have required such a permit
if that Section had been in effect at the time that portion of the structure was
constructed;or
ii.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,family room,dining
room or kitchen.
(c)If a master bedroom exists on the same level as the primary living
area of the house,and if no views are enjoyed from the other primary living areas,views from
the master bedroom will be considered.
(d)Views will be analyzed without respect to foliage eXisting on
properties within 1000 feet of the property from which the view is taken.The impact of a
proposed structure if the foliage did not exist will be estimated as best as can be determined.
However,if the foliage blocking the view is located on the property from which the view is taken,
Page 32
ATTACHMENTS 2-192
Height Variation Guidelines
April 20,2004
such foliage must be removed prior to the view analysis or that foliage will be considered as
remaining in the view.
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.iv,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;
(a)An applicant proposing to construct a new structure that exceeds
16-feet in height or an addition to existing structure that exceeds 16-feet in height is encouraged
to design the structure so that it minimizes a view impairment from the viewing area of another
parcel even when a view may not be significantly impaired.
(b)View impairment may be minimized by redesigning a structure to
relocate or reduce the size of the portion of the addition over 16 feet in height to lessen the view
impact.
(c)Redesign to minimize view impairment may include relocation or
reorientation of the addition,deletion of a balcony,revised roof pitch,or other measures which
generally maintain the scope of the addition.
(d)Minimizing a view impairment does not apply to proposed
construction or proposed additions to existing structures 16-feet or less in height ,eVen when
attached to and a portion of the overall addition which includes construction which exceeds 16
feet in height.Notwithstanding,residents are encouraged,but not required,to take their
neighbor's view into account when de$igning a project below 16-feet in height."
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;
(a)Significant cumulative view impairment will be considered when
'.the individual structure may not significantly impair views,but when the effect of the structure
could,in combination with other similar structures,create significant view impairment.
(b)The Director or Planning Commission will determine which other
nearby parcels within the viewshed from a particular property or public place may be developed,
consistent with this Section;which would further impair a view.The evaluation will usually not
extend beyond three or four parcels adjacent to the sUbject property.
(c)The criteria for determining the significance of the cumulative view
impairment is the same as for significance for the individual structure,as outlined below in
paragraph 6.
Page 33
ATTACHMENTS 2-193
Height Variation Guidelines
April 20,2004
7.
requirements."
"The proposed structure complies with all other Code
Any proposed structure will be evaluated to assure compliance with zoning,
General Plan,and Specific Plan requirements,including but not limited to setbacks and open
space restrictions,as well as any specific conditions associated with the pertinent tract
approval.If other discretionary permits are required for the second story addition,approval of
the Height Variation Permit shall be contingent on the approval of those other discretionary
permit.
8."The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate
neighborhood character.II
"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.
(c)Front,side and rear yard setbacks.
The Director's or Planning Commission's determination of compatibility with
neighborhood character will be based on a review of the above criteria relative to the immediate
neighborhood which is normally considered to be at least the twenty (20)closest residences
within the same zoning district,and on property owner response to the required notification.
Increases in scale,height,bulk or mass or decreases in setbacks or open space may be
considered incompatible.
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."
"Privacy is defined as the reasonable protection from intrusive visual
observation."
(a)The burden of proving an "unreasonable infringement of indoor
and/or outdoor privacy"shall be on the property owner claiming infringement of privacy.The
Director or Planning Commission will make a determination on a case by case basis.
(b)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.
Page 34
ATTACHMENTS 2-194
Height Variation Guidelines
April 20,2004
Redesign to minimize invasion of privacy may include using translucent material
in (upper floor)windows,eliminating windows,reducing and/or relocating balconies,or
eliminating balconies.
X.HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT PROCEDURES
A.Height Variation Permit Application
The attached "Height Variation Permit Application"must be submitted to the
City's Department of Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement to initiate a request for a Height
Variation Permit.
B.Height Variation Permit Process
The following sequence of steps shall occur in order to process a Height
Variation Permit application:
1.
proposed project.
The applicant consults with property owners within 500 feet of the
2.The applicant completes and submits an application form to the City's
Department of Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement along with the appropriate fees.The
application must be accompanied by proof of early neighbor consultation (including letter from
subject Homeowners Association,if any)and the waiver form for the temporary frame.
3.The applicant erects the temporary frame and notifies Staff that the frame
is in place.
4.Staff reviews the application to assure that it is complete,and inspt::cts
the site to assure that the temporary frame is in place and adequately constructed.A letter will
be sent to the applicant not later than 30 calendar days after submittal indicating that the
application is complete for review or what additional information or corrections are required to
make the application complete for review.
5.The Director shall refer an application for a Height Variation Permit
directly to the Planning Commission for consideration under the same findings,as part of a
public hearing,if any of the following is proposed:.
a.Any portion of a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in
height extends closer than twenty-five (25)feet from the front or street-side property line;or
b.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in
height (the second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent (75%)of the existing first story
footprint area (residence and attached garage);
c.Sixty percent (60%)or more of an existing garage footprint is
covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height (a second story);or
d.The portion of a structure that exceeds sixteen feet in height is
being developed as part of a new single-family residence;or
Page 35
ATTACHMENTS 2-195
Height Variatic~~uidelines
April 20,2004
e.Based on an initial site visit,the Director determines that any
portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen (16)feet in height may significantly
impair a view as defined in this chapter."
6.Staff mails notice to all property owners within a five hundred foot radius
and to the affected homeowners'association,if any,and informs them that any objections to the
proposed construction must be submitted to the City within 30 days after the date of the notice.
7.Staff will conduct view analyses to determine whether the nine review
criteria are being met from properties whose owners have expressed concern regarding the
proposed construction and any additional properties that Staff feels may be impacted by the
proposed project.
8.Based on the view analyses,review of the plans,review of the
surrounding area,and the decision criteria outlined in the Municipal Code,a decision will be
rendered approving the application,approving the application with conditions,or denying the
application.Letters of interest that have been received will be taken into consideration when
evaluating the project based on the criteria mentioned previously.Either the Director or the
Planning Commission will render the initial decision pursuant to section VIII(A)of these
Guidelines (Administrative or Planning Commission Review).
9.The Director's or Planning Commission's decision will be mailed to the
applicant and any person who responded to the original notice.However,only written
correspondence or testimony before the Planning Commission will be considered as a response
entitling a person to appeal the Director's or Planning Commission's decision.
10.The Director's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission by
the applicant or by any person who provided written correspondence to the Director prior to the
Director's decision.The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City
Council by any person who commented orally or in writing to the Planning Commission.The
appeals must be filed in writing (stating the reason(s)for the appeal)within 15 calendar days of
the date of the decision notice,accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee.
11.The Planning Commission or City Council will conduct a pUblic hearing to
consider the Height Variation Permit appeal.Notice of the public hearing will be mailed at least
30 days in advance of the hearing.Notice will be prOVided to all persons within 500 feet of the
structure in question as well as any additional property owners previously determined by the
City to be affected by the proposal.
12.The Director's decision shall be final if no appeal is filed to the Planning
Commission.The Planning Commission's decision shall be final if no appeal is filed to the City
Council.The decision of the City Council is final.
Page 36
ATTACHMENTS 2-196
Height Variation Guidelines
Apr••lO,2004
XI.REMOVAL OF FOLIAGE AS CONDITION OF PERMIT ISSUANCE
Section 17.02.040(B)(4)of the Municipal Code requires that:
liThe City shall issue no Conditional Use Permit,Variance,Height
Variation Permit,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 of the foliage on said lot exceeding sixteen (16)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.The owner of the property is responsible for
maintaining the foliage so that the views remain unimpaired.This requirement shall not
apply where removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy
of the occupants of the property on which the foliage exists and there is no method by
which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means allowed
within the Development Code that does not significantly impair a view from a viewing
area of another property.The initial decision on the amount of foliage removal required
or the reasonable degree of privacy to be maintained shall be made by the Director,the
Planning Commission or the City Council,as appropriate for the entitlement in question.
If the permit issuance involves property located within the Miraleste Recreation &Park
District,the findipgs of Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c)(vi)shall apply.A decision by the
Director may be appealed,with the appropriate fee,to the Planning Commission,and any
decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council.II
Foliage analysis will be conducted for any project which either adds 120 'square
feet or more of habitable space or involves a structure which can be used as a gathering space
and viewing area,such as decks or covered patios (also,120 square feet or more).Excluded
are projects which are clearly not tlabitable or which are just minor architectural features
(antennas,skylights,solar panels,tool sheds,garden windows,etc.).Each such planning
permit will include a condition,based upon a site inspection,requiring that specified foliage be
pruned or removed prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Indoor privacy can be achieved in many unobtrusive ways such that obstructive
foliage should generally not be preserved to protect indoor privacy.The burden of proof of
"unreasonable"intrusion of privacy shall be on the foliage owner.
Page 37
ATTACHMENTS 2-197