CC SR 20191001 01 - 5325 Bayridge Road Appeal
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: October 1, 2019
Subject: Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission -
approved Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review on property located at 5325
Bayridge Road (Case No. ZON2016-00358).
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 2019-__; upholding the Planning Commission-approved Height Variation
Permit and Site Plan Review applications approving the demolition of an existing single -story
residence to accommodate the construction of a new 4,560-square-foot (garage included)
two-story residence and related site improvements with modifications to Condition of
Approval No. 22.
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Duhovic
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: Octavio Silva, Senior Planner
5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6. Public Testimony:
Principal Parties 10 Minutes Each. The appellant or their representative speaks first and will generally be allowed ten minutes. If the
applicant is different from the appellant, the applicant or their representative will speak following the appellant and will also be
allowed ten minutes to make a presentation.
A. Appellant: Frank and Susan Semelka
Mayor Duhovic invites the Appellant to speak. (10 mins.)
B. Applicant: Ben Cauthen (Pacific Design Group)
i. Mayor Duhovic invites the Applicant to speak. (10 mins.)
C. Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who
intend to speak.
7. Rebuttal: Mayor Duhovic invites brief rebuttals by Appellant and Applicant. (3 mins)
Normally, the applicants and appellants will be limited to a three (3) minute rebuttal, if requested after all other interested persons have
spoken.
8. Council Questions of Appellant (factual and without bias):
9. Council Questions of Applicant (factual and without bias):
10. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Duhovic
11. Council Deliberation: The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify
matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will
then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
12. Council Action: The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter;
reopen the hearing for additional testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision. Cover Page
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/01/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission-
approved Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review on property located at 5325
Bayridge Road (Case No. ZON2016-00358).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-__; upholding the Planning Commission-approved
Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review applications approving the
demolition of an existing single-story residence to accommodate the construction
of a new 4,560-square-foot (garage included) two-story residence and related
site improvements with modifications to Condition of Approval No. 22.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellant paid the $2,275 appeal fee. If the City Council grants
the appeal, the entire $2,275 appeal fee will be refunded to Appellant. If an appeal
results in a modification to the project, other than changes specifically requested in the
appeal, half of the appeal fee ($1,137.50) shall be refunded to Appellant. If the City
Council denies the appeal, the Appellant will not be refunded any of the appeal fee.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Octavio Silva, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Doug Wilmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 2019-___ (page A-1)
B. Appeal letter (page B-1)
C. P.C. Resolution No. 2019-16 (page C-1)
D. Staff Report, dated July 9, 2019 (page D-1)
E. Public comments (page E-1)
F. Project Plans (page F-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On May 14, 2019, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing to consider a
request by Ben Cauthen of Pacific Design Group (Applicant) to demolish an existing
single-story residence at 5325 Bayridge Road in order to construction a new 4,659-
1
square-foot, two-story residence with a 645-square-foot, attached three-car garage for a
total structure size of 5,304 square feet and with related site improvements . Based on
public testimony provided that evening along with the Planning Commission’s review of
the project plans, the public hearing was continued to provide the Applicant with
additional time to consider revising the project plans to address the following concerns:
Height
Structure size
Mass and bulk
Setbacks between the lower and upper floors
Privacy
On July 9, 2019, the Planning Commission, after considering the Applicant’s project
revisions and public testimony, adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2019-16 (Attachment C),
conditionally approving a Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the
demolition of an existing single-story residence to accommodate the construction of a
new, 4,560-square-foot (garage included), two-story residence and related site
improvements. A detailed background summary of the project is included in the July 9,
2019, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D).
On July 23, 2019, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval was filed by
the Semelkas (Appellants), the abutting neighbors immediately to the west of the project
site at 5329 Bayridge Road (Attachment B). The written appeal filed by the Appellants
focuses on the following two specific aspects of the Planning Commission-approved
project:
1. Amend Condition No. 22 to address privacy infringement concerns from
second-story north-facing balconies (decks).
The design of the Planning Commission-approved residence includes two separate
decks totaling 128 square feet along the north or rear-facing elevation of the residence.
The two decks have been designed to incorporate 5-foot-high translucent side panels
on each of the decks, so as to provide privacy screening to neighboring properties. The
Appellants indicate that the 5-foot-high panels still permit views over the top and request
that the Conditions of Approval be modified to require the panels be a minimum of six
feet in height.
In response to the appeal, Staff worked with the Applicant on a revision to the
Conditions of Approval to address the Appellants’ request to increase the height of the
deck side panels. As a result, the Applicant has reviewed and accepted the following
Staff-recommended amended language to Condition No. 2 2 (proposed language is
shown in bold/underline text):
22. The Property Owner shall be responsible for maintaining a minimum 6-
foot high translucent privacy panels for each of the second -story decks
located along the north elevation of the proposed residence.
2
2. Amend Condition No. 18 to restrict the maximum height of the structure in
order to maintain neighborhood compatibility and consistency with
previously-approved projects in the area.
The Planning Commission-approved residence will be two stories in height with an
overall height of 21.92 feet, as measured from the highest elevation of the existing
grade covered by the structure to the highest proposed roof ridgeline, and an overall
height of 22.42 feet, as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the
structure to the highest proposed roof ridgeline. The Appellants request that the height
of the proposed residence be limited to 19.17 feet, as measured from the highest
elevation of the existing grade to the highest proposed roof ridgeline. The Appellants
request that the height be reduced in order for the residence to remain compatible (in
their opinion) with the height of previous City-approved two-story residences in the area,
including their residence at 5329 Bayridge Road and a neighboring residence at 5345
Bayridge Road. In addition, the Appellants request that the building pad of the project
site be lowered, similar to what the City required for their addition, so as to address bulk
and mass concerns and to remain compatible with the sloping topography along
Bayridge Road. The aerial photo below identifies the project site in relation to the two
most recent two-story residences in the area.
The Appellants’ request would result in an additional 2.75-foot height reduction to the
Planning Commission-approved residence, as measured from the highest grade
adjacent to the structure, and grading (cut) to lower the building pad of the project site.
The Appellants’ request was considered by the Planning Commission, wh ich felt that
the request is unwarranted as the Applicant reduced the overall height of the initially
proposed residence by approximately two feet, reduced the structure size by 744 square
3
feet, and provided increased setbacks from the upper and lower floors, so as to address
neighborhood compatibility concerns of bulk and mass. Based on the Planning
Commission’s rationale, Staff also believes that, in this case, requiring the Applicant to
grade the building pad of the project site down in order to reduce the height of the
Planning Commission-approved residence is unwarranted as the proposed residence
has been found to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood . It would also
constitute excessive grading, as Staff’s view analysis determined that the height of the
Planning Commission-approved residence does not significantly impair a view from a
neighboring property. For these reasons, Staff believes that the Appellants’ requests to
reduce the overall height of the house and building pad are not warranted
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Quasi-Judicial Appeal Review
Pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.80.070(F) (De Novo
Review), the City Council appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the materials
presented to the Planning Commission. Any matter or evidence relating to the action on
the application, regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed by the City
Council at the appeal hearing. Accordingly, the draft resolution includes all of the
findings originally made by the Planning Commission.
Public Comments
On August 29, 2019, a public notice was mailed to owners of property with in a 500-foot
radius of the project site and published in the Peninsula News. As of the preparation of
this report, Staff received two public comments (Attachment E) from the two Appellants,
Mr. and Mrs. Semelka, which further discuss the reasons for the requested appeal, but
which does not present any new information than that discussed in the “Background
and Analysis” section of this report.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Modify the appeal and direct Staff to return to the City Council with a
revised resolution at the October 15, 2019, City Council Meeting.
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval without
modifying any of the Conditions of Approval.
3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff
and/or the Applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue
the public hearing to a date certain.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION-APPROVED HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATIONS APPROVING
THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-STORY
RESIDENCE TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW 4,560FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED)TWO-STORY
RESIDENCE AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS WITH
MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITION NO. 22 OF THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON THE PROPERTY AT
5325 BAYRIDGE ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-
00358).
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2016, the Applicant (Ben Cauthen, Pacific Design
Group) submitted Height Variation and Site Plan Review applications requesting to
demolish an existing single-story residence in order to construct a new two-story
residence with ancillary improvements; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2016, Staff deemed the application incomplete due to
missing information on the project plans; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019, after several submittals of additional information,
the application was deemed complete for processing; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed
public hearing, considered public testimony expressing concerns with the project
design, and continued the public hearing to its June 25, 2019, meeting to allow the
Applicant an opportunity to address neighborhood compatibility concerns including
structure size, bulk and mass, and building height, as well as privacy impacts; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2019, the Applicant submitted revised plans that reduced
the structure size from 5,304ft2 to 4,560ft2 and the structure height from 24.6’ to 22.42’;
recessed the second story between 5’ and 10’ along the east facade; and replaced the
438ft2 rear facade deck with two smaller decks with translucent side panels totaling 128ft2
in size; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2019, the Applicant revised the project silhouette, which
was installed 3 days prior to the transmittal of the June 25th Planning Commission agenda
packet; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2019, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to July 9, 2019, in order to provide adequate time for interested parties to assess
the revised project plans and silhouette; and
A-1
Resolution No. 2019-__
Page 2 of 13
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2019, the Planning Commission, after considering public
testimony and the project revisions, adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2019-16, conditionally
approving a Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the demolition of the
existing single-story residence to accommodate the construction of a new 4,560ft2
(garage included) two-story residence with ancillary site improvements; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2019, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s
approval was filed by Frank and Susan Semelka (“Appellants”) requesting the City
Council modify the Conditions of Approval; and
WHEREAS, Appellants’ appeal raised the following issues with the Planning
Commission’s decision: 1) Amend Condition No. 22 to address privacy infringement
concerns from the proposed second-story north-facing balconies (decks); 2) Amend
Condition No. 18 to restrict the maximum height of the structure in order to maintain
neighborhood compatibility and consistency with previously-approved projects in the
area; and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2019, a 30-day public notice of the public hearing
regarding the appeal was provided to all property owners within a 500’ radius of the
Property and published in the Peninsula News; 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), the proposed project has been found to be categorically
exempt under the Class 3 categorical exemption (Section 15303); and,
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2019, the City Council held a duly-noticed public
hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as
set forth herein.
Section 2: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission-approved
Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review applications with modifications to
Condition No. 22 of the Conditions of Approval and in connection therewith makes the
following findings based on the all evidence and testimony provide in the Staff report
and at the public hearing.
A-2
Resolution No. 2019-__
Page 3 of 13
Section 3: Certain merits of the Appellants’ appeal are warranted as described
below.
A. Appeal Reason No. 1: Amend Condition No. 22 to address privacy infringement
concerns from second-story north-facing balconies (Decks).
The Appellant is requesting that Condition No. 22 be amended to require the
height of the privacy panels to be 6’ high. In response to the appeal, Staff worked
with the Appellant on a revision to the condition language that addresses the
Appellant’s request. As a result, the Applicant has reviewed and accepted the
following Staff-recommended amended language to Condition No. 22 (new
language is shown in bold/underline text):
22. The Property Owner shall be responsible for maintaining a minimum 6’
high translucent privacy panels for each of the second -story decks
located along the north elevation of the proposed residence.
Section 4: Certain merits of the Appellants’ appeal are not warranted as
described below.
A. Appeal Reason No. 2: Amend Condition No. 18 to restrict the maximum height of
the structure in order to maintain neighborhood compatibility and consistency with
previously-approved projects in the area.
The Planning Commission-approved residence will be two stories in height with
an overall height of 22.3’, as measured from the highest elevation of the existing
grade covered by the structure to the highest proposed roof ridgeline, and an
overall height of 22.42’, as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to
the structure to the highest proposed roof ridgeline. The Appellants request that
the height of the proposed residence be limited to 19.17’, as measured from the
highest elevation of the existing grade to the highest proposed roof ridgeline. The
Appellants request that the height be reduced in order for the residence to
remain compatible with the height of previously-approved two-story residences in
the area including those at 5329 and 5345 Bayridge Road. In addition, the
Appellants request that the building pad of the project site be lowered, so as
address bulk and mass concerns and to remain compatible with the sloping
topography along Bayridge Road.
The Appellants’ request is unwarranted as the Applicant, as part of the Planning
Commission’s review of the project, reduced the overall height of the initially
proposed residence by approximately 2’, reduced the structure size by 744ft 2 and
provided increased setbacks from the upper and lower floors, so as to address
neighborhood compatibility concerns of bulk and mass. Furthermore, requiring
the Applicant to grade the building pad of the project site down in order to reduce
A-3
Resolution No. 2019-__
Page 4 of 13
the height of the Planning Commission-approved residence would constitute
excessive grading, as a completed view analysis determined that the height of
the Planning Commission-approved residence does not significantly impair a
view from a neighboring property.
Section 5: A Height Variation Permit is warranted for the construction of a 22.42’ tall
two-story residence exceeding the 16’/20’ by-right height limitation, based on the following
findings:
A. The Applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process
guidelines and procedures established by the City Council by obtaining 70% of the
signatures from properties within 100’ of the subject site and 36% of the signatures
from properties within 500’ of the site. The Applicant also provided documentation
demonstrating that the local Lower Grandview Homeowners Association was
notified and no response was received.
B. The proposed residence that is above 16’ in height does not significantly impair a
view from public property, which has been identified in the City’s General Plan,
Coastal Specific Plan, or a public trail as defined in the Trails Network Plan . Due
to the location of the property and the topography of the immediate area, the
proposed residence will not be visible from a public viewing area or viewing site.
C. The proposed residence is not located on a ridge or promontory. The proposed
residence is located on an existing building pad and is not located on a prominent
mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on two
sides.
D. The area of the proposed residence that is above 16’ in height, as defined in
Section 17.20.040(B) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, when
considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from
the viewing area of another parcel. Views of the distant mountains (San Gabriel),
Los Angeles Basin, Queen’s Necklace, and city lights are obser ved from the
properties in the immediate neighborhood in a northerly direction. The views from
the properties located south of the subject site above 16’ in height are limited to
the sky, which is not considered a protected view. There is one property south of
the project site at 5348 Bayridge Road that contains a small portion of the
mountain-view along the right periphery of the view frame above 16’ in height .
Given the minimal impairment and the location of the view at the right periphery
between existing trees, this is not considered a significant view impact. The
properties located to the east and west are at the same elevation as the subject
site and have a view of city lights in a northerly direction, which is not across or
over the subject site. The properties to the north are at or near the same elevation
as that of the project site and do not have views across the subject site.
A-4
Resolution No. 2019-__
Page 5 of 13
E. The proposed residence that is above 16’ is designed and situated in such a
manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of view. Staff analysis
determined that the view impairment caused by the proposed residence above 16’
in height to 5348 Bayridge Road is considered not significant. The proposed
residence includes adequate articulation between the lower and upper floors that
allows enhanced open space to reasonably minimize view impairment.
F. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application. Similar construction on the properties at 5345, 5337, 5329 and 5319
Bayridge Road would only impair the view of the sky, which is not considered a
protected view.
G. The proposed residence complies with all other Code requirements including, but
not limited to, the minimum required setbacks, number of parking, and maximum
allowed lot coverage.
H. The proposed residence is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character
in terms of structure size, bulk and mass, height, architectural style, and lot
coverage. The proposed residence will be 4,560ft 2 in size, which is compatible to
recently constructed two-story residences located at 5329 and 5345 Bayridge
Road. The varied façade setbacks between the upper and lower floors breaks up
the apparent vertical mass and provides enhanced façade articulation along the
façades. The proposed 22.42’ height of the residence is compatible to the height
of existing two-story residences in the area. The proposed residence incorporates
architectural and design elements consistent with the neighboring properties
including a low-pitched gable roof with clay tile roofing and exterior stucco finish.
The proposed lot coverage of 43.9% which is compatible with the neighborhood
that varies based on the topography and layout of existing improvements.
I. The portion of the proposed residence that is above 16’ in height does not result
in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the occupants of abutting
residences. The proposed covered balcony at the front of the residence will face a
public street (i.e. Bayridge Road), where there is no expectation of privacy. The
two decks located at the rear of the residence incorporate opaque side panels at
the east and west ends to minimize potential privacy impacts to the abutting
properties at 5319 and 5329 Bayridge Road. No second story windows are
proposed along the west façade closest to the abutting property, and obscured or
opaque windows are proposed for most second -story windows along the east
façade to further minimize privacy impacts to the neighboring prop erty at 5319
Bayridge Road.
Section 6: A Site Plan Review is warranted for the proposed ancillary
improvements to the residence and yard area, including decks, mechanical equipment,
and driveway and hardscape remodeling. The proposed ancillary improvements comply
A-5
Resolution No. 2019-__
Page 6 of 13
with all applicable code requirements, including but not limited to, setbacks, parking, and
maximum lot coverage standards in the RS-5 zoning district.
Section 7: 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), the proposed project has been found to be categorically
exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303(a)).
Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other record of proceedings, the City Council of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby upholds the Planning Commission-approved
Height Variation and Site Plan Review applications to allow the demolition of an existing
single-story residence to accommodate the construction of a 4,560ft 2 (garage included)
two-story residence with ancillary site improvements with modifications to Condition No.
22 of the Conditions of Approval on the property at 5325 Bayridge Road and as identified
in the attached Exhibit “A”.
Section 9: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption
of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in
the Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
Section 10: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure and/or Section 21167 of the California Public Resources Code
A-6
Resolution No. 2019-__
Page 7 of 13
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 1st day of October 2019.
_________________________________
Jerry Duhovic, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2019-__, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on October 1, 2019.
__________________________________
CITY CLERK
A-7
Resolution No. 2019-__
Page 8 of 13
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00358
(HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW)
5325 BAYRIDGE ROAD
General Conditions:
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant
and property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have
read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Resolution. Failure to provide the written statement within 90 days of this approval
shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether l egal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void,
or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of
its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for c urb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. 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.
5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040 of RPVMC, the Director of Community
Development is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and
any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the
same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditi ons.
Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require
A-8
Resolution No. 2019-__
Page 9 of 13
approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require
new and separate environmental review and public notification.
6. 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 RPVMC, including but not limited
to, height, setback, and lot coverage standards.
7. 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 RPVMC and may result in administrative
citations as described in Section 1.16 of the RPVMC.
8. 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 RPVMC within one year of the final effective date of this
Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless,
prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community
Development Department and approved by the Director of Community
Development.
9. 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.
10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all constructio n shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the
City with the effective date of this Resolution.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified
on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or
legal non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal
or legal non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions
or on the stamped APPROVED plans.
12. 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: debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete
asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture,
appliances or other household fixtures.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat, and orderl y
manner, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed
A-9
Resolution No. 2019-__
Page 10 of 13
on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary
portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms
shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding
property owners, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official.
14. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section
17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development C ode. During demolition,
construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7:00 a.m. Monday
through Friday and before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted
hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the
construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located so
as to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties,
subject to approval by the building official.
15. If construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting
property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over
30 calendar days, the Applicant shall provide temporary construction fencing, as
defined in Section 17.56.050(C) of the RPVMC. Unless required to protect against
a safety hazard, temporary construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than
15 days prior to commencement of construction.
16. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the Applicant shall employ
effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/ or watering.
Project Specific Conditions
17. This approval allows for the following:
A. Demolition of the existing 1,717ft2 single-story residence;
B. Construction of a 4,091ft2 two-story single-family residence with a 469ft2
attached 2-car garage area for a total structure size of 4,560ft²;
C. Construction of two second-story decks totaling 128ft2 in size along the rear
of the residence, with verandas located underneath the deck areas;
D. Construction of a 58ft2 covered balcony at the east end of the front façade;
E. Reconfiguration of the existing indirect-access driveway to a direct-access
driveway with a larger driveway approach;
F. Construction of a 42” high front yard fence along the property line; and,
G. Installation of air conditioning equipment within a recessed area of the east
façade.
A-10
Resolution No. 2019-__
Page 11 of 13
18. The height of the approved project shall be as depicted on the stamped APPROVED
plans and in no case shall the maximum height extend above a height of 21.92’,
as measured from highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure
(elev. 675.50’) to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 697.42’); and an overall
height of 22.42’ as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure
(elev. 675.00’) to the highest propo sed roof ridgeline (elev. 697.42’). BUILDING
HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor
or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection, based on the above mentioned
instructions.
19. The approved residence shall maintain a 21’-8” front yard setback, a 5’-0” east side
yard setback, 5’-0” west side yard setback and a 49’-11” rear yard setback.
BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed
land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
20. The proposed chimney may project a maximum of 2' into any r equired setback,
and shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform
Building Code.
21. The bathroom and laundry room windows located on the second -story of the
residence along the east facing façade shall incorporate obscure or opaque glass.
22. The Property Owner shall be responsible for maintaining a minimum 6’ high
translucent privacy side panels for each of the second-story decks located along
the north elevation of the proposed residence.
23. Unless modified by the approval of futu re planning applications, the approved
project shall maintain a maximum of 43.9% lot coverage.
24. Driveways, paved walkways and parking areas shall not cover more than 50% of
the required 20’ front setback area. Any pervious or semi-pervious surface which
is part of or within a driveway or parking area shall not be considered to be
landscaping.
25. A minimum 2-car garage shall be provided and maintained as a garage, and a
minimum of 2 unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a
driveway. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of
no less than 9'-0” in width and 20'-0” in depth, with a minimum 7'-0” vertical
clearance. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space
of no less than 9’ in width by 20’-0” in depth.
26. A driveway shall be a minimum width of 10’.
A-11
Resolution No. 2019-__
Page 12 of 13
27. Exterior residential lighting shall comply with the standards of Section 17.56.030
of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. All exterior lighting shall be so
arranged and shielded as to prevent direct illumination of abutting properties and
of vehicles passing on the public right-of-way. Luminaries shall be of a low-level
indirect and diffused type. All fluorescent bulbs or other lighting under canopies or
on the building shall be covered with diffusing lenses and shielded.
28. All grading, landscaping, and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
29. The Applicant shall remove the project silhouette within 7 days after a final decision
has been rendered and the City’s appeal process has been exhausted.
30. The maintenance or operation of mechanical equipment, including but not limited
to AC units or pool filters, generating noise levels in excess of 65 dBA as measured
from the closest property line shall constitute a public nuisance in accordance to
Chapter 8.24 of the RPVMC.
Prior to Building Permit Issuance
31. The Applicant shall demonstrate the project's compliance with the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Rule 445 and the City Municipal Code requirements
regarding wood-burning devices.
32. All applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety
Division, shall be approved by the City’s geologist.
33. A drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
34. The Applicant shall obtain a permit from the Public Works Department and/or the
Community Development Department for proposed work within the public right-of-
way.
35. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, an earth
hauling permit shall be approved by the Public Works Department.
Prior to Certificate of Occupancy
36. The Applicant shall submit complete Landscape Plans and associated Trust
Deposit to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development. The final approved landscaping shall be installed prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. The landscape plans
may be required to comply with the State of California Water Efficient Landscape
requirements, as determined by the City’s Landscape Architect.
A-12
Resolution No. 2019-__
Page 13 of 13
Upon completion of the installation of the landscaped areas or altered landscaped
area subject to Section 15.34.100, the project Applicant shall submit a certificate
of completion, in the form provided by the city, for review and approval by the
Director of Community Development. The certificate of completion shall be
executed by either the licensed landscaped architect, licensed la ndscape
contractor or the certified irrigation designer that signed any of the documents
submitted as part of the landscape documentation package.
37. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from an
existing power pole or other point of connection off-site prior to certificate of
occupancy.
A-13
July 22, 2019
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
We are writing to appeal the height variation approved by the Planning
Commission on July 9, 2019 for the project located at 5325 Bayridge Rd. -
(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
The grounds for appeal are two-fold:
> 1) PRIVACY INFRINGEMENT FROM 2ND STORY NORTH-FACING
BALCONIES
SPECIFIC ACTION REQUESTED: Stipulate in conditions of approval,
opaque privacy panels 6 ft . in height out to the north edge of the decks on
both east and west sides to prevent views over the top of the opaque
panels. 5 ft panels still permit views over the top.
REASON FOR GRIEVANCE: There was already a finding of
unreasonable infringement of privacy for abutting properties to theE and
W, from theN facing decks of 5325 Bayridge Rd. Opaque panels were
added to plans on the east and west sides, but the height requirement of
those panels is not specified in the conditions for approval. Without that
requirement, panels can be changed at a later date . Opaque panels put in
place to mitigate privacy infringement on occupants of abutting properties
aren 't effective if people can see over the top of them . The ability to see
over the top of the panels still imposes an adverse privacy infringement
and creates a source of discomfort and stress. For reference, the 5329
Bayridge project required 6 ft opaque panels out to the northern most
extent of our deck due to privacy concerns precisely from 5325 Bayridge .
> 2) MOST IMPORTANT GREIVANCE:
0
~ m
fd a:
MAXIUM HEIGHT APPROVAL OF 22.4' FROM LOWEST FINISHED
GRADE AND 22.3' FROM HIGHEST EXISTING GRADE TO RIDGE LINE
SPECIFIC ACTION REQUESTED: Maintain Neighborhood Compatibility
and consistency with adjacent projects, restricting the maximum height to
19.17' from the HIGHEST EXISTING grade to the ridge line, as was
imposed on both 5329 and 5345 Bayridge Rd. -the two recently
approved 2-story homes in closest proximity, used as comparisons for
approval of 5325 project.
REASON FOR GRIEVANCE: IT IS EXPLICITLY NOT COMPATIBLE,
CONSISTENT, NOR FAIR TO APPROVE the same HEIGHT for 5325
~
C)
C'J
··~
C"1 __,
~ -,
1-z w
~ a.. Or
-'Z ~w w::E c~
>-~ t:a. zW =>a
~
~
0
0
B-1
July 22, 2019
relative to hig h est existing grade as was imposed on both 5329 and
5345 for the LOWEST FINISHED GRADE . BOTH PROJECTS (5329 and
5345) WERE DIRECTED TO LOWER THE BUILDING PAD BY
GRADING DOWN 3 FEET in order to make the findings of neighborhood
compatibility and mitigate concerns for appearance of Bulk and Mass. To
remain consistent and fair in "making the finding for neighborhood
compatibility" (the very rationale for using 5329 & 5345 projects as
comparisons to 5325), the maximum height must be compared against the
highest exist ing grade -19.17' for 5325 and 18.75' for 5345 Bayridge Rd.
In our case (5329), the height limitation was attributed to BOTH
compatibility with the closest surrounding homes AS WELL AS "the public
rig ht-of-way". "Specifically, since the project site is located at the end of a
"T" intersection, it is highly visible from motorists travelin g on Bayridge Rd.
and Birchfield Ave." -a direct quote from our report. It was determined that
"because of the existing topography of Ba yridg e Rd. sloping down in an
easterly direction there was a particular concern of Bulk and Mass as
vie wed from the neighboring property to the east because our building pad
was alreadv higher. These exact same circumstances exist for 5325
Bayridge Rd. That lot has an even more prominent location at the "T"
of the intersection of Bayridge and Birchfield Ave. and because of the
sloping nature of Bavridge Rd in an easterly direction, the existing
building pad is higher than the small one story home directly to the
east. It is completely incompatible and inconsistent to approve that
project for a maximum height of 22.3' from the highest existing grade
and not require lowering the building pad. It is also crucial to consider
what this portends for 5337, currently a single story, two lots away from
5325 and directly between 5329 and 5345, both of which have already
been graded down due to Planning Commission findings.
22.4' is the hei~ht we proposed on our 2"d revision and we were denied.
Even on our 3r revision, grading down 3' and reducing the building size to
4324 sf with a MAX. HEIGHT of 19.17' FROM THE HIGHEST EXISTING
GRADE, we were still denied due to above reasons. We had to appeal to
City Council and get testimony of approval from a large number of
neighbors, before finally being approved 5-0.
Had we been given the opportunity to build to 22.3' relative to maximum
existing grade, and not have to go to the complexity and expense of
grading to comply with a maximum height of 19.17', it would have
prevented many of the challenges we face today and will continue to face,
as a result of having to adhere to such stringent restrictions. THERE IS
B-2
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DIFFERENT BETWEEN OUR TWO
PROPERTIES .
IN SUMMARY:
5325 BAYRIDGE RD. APPROVED FOR HEIGHT VARIATION:
July 22,2019
>Max. height from highest existing grade 22.3' to ridgelineCreated on
7/22/19 6:40PM
>Max. height from lowest finished grade 22.4 '
>Building sz. 4560 sf
>No requirement to grade down to lower building height.
This project was approved with comparison to both 5329 Bayridge Rd .
and 5345 Bayridge Rd.
5329 BAYRIDGE RD. (directly adjacent-more centered location at T of
intersection. Exact same situation of easterly neighbor with small one story
home on lower lot due to topography)
> Restricted to 19.17' from highest existing grade to ridgeline
> Max. height-22.9' from lowest finished grade (after grading down 3')
> Building size restricted to 4324 sf
>Required to grade down to lower building height and reduce size to
mitigate bulk and mass concerns
5345 BAYRIDGE RD. (3 houses to west of 5325 Bayridge)
>Restricted to 18.75' from highest existing grade to ridgeline
>Max. height-22.42' from lowest finished grade (after grading down 3')
> Building sz. 4 750 sf
> Required to grade down to lower building height to mitigate bulk and
mass concerns.
Thank you for your consideration in these matters very important to us,
Sincerely,
Frank and Susan Semelka
B-3
P .C. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH
CONDITIONS, A HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,560FT2
(GARAGE INCLUDED) TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH
ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5325 BAYRIDGE ROAD (CASE NO. ZON2016-
00358)
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2016, the Applicant submitted Height Variation and
Site Plan Review applications requesting to demolish an existing single-story residence
in order to construct a new two-story residence with ancillary improvements; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2016, Staff deemed the application incomplete due to
missing information on the project plans; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019, after several submittals of additional information,
the application was deemed complete for processing; and
WHEREAS, March 21, 2019, a public notice was mailed to property owners
within a 500' radius of the project site and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula
News pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing, considered public testimony expressing concerns with the project
design, and continued the public hearing to its June 25, 2019 meeting to allow the
Applicant an opportunity to address neighborhood compatibility concerns including
structure size, bulk and mass, and building height, as well as privacy impacts; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2019, the Applicant submitted revised plans that
reduced the structure size from 5,304ft2 to 4,560ft2 and the structure height from 24.6' to
22.42'; recessed the second story between 5' and 1 0' along the east facade; and
replaced the 438ft2 rear facade deck with two smaller decks with translucent side panels
totaling 128ft2 in size; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2019, the Applicant revised the project silhouette, which
was installed 3-days prior to the transmittal of the June 25 1h Planning Commission
agenda packet; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2019, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to July 9, 2019 in order to provide adequate time for interested parties to assess
the revised project plans and silhouette; and
P.C. Resolution No. 2019-16
Page 1 of 11 C-1
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), the proposed project has been found to be categorically
exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303(a)); and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The proposed project involves the demolition of existing 1, 717ft2
single-story residence to accommodate the construction of a new 4,560ft2 (garage
included) two-story residence measuring 22.42' in height with related site
improvements.
Section 2: A Height Variation permit is warranted for the construction of a
22.42' tall two-story residence exceeding the 16'/20' by-right height limitation, based on
the following findings :
A. The Applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process
guidelines and procedures established by the City Council by obtaining 70% of
the signatures from properties within 1 00' of the subject site and 36% of the
signatures from properties within 500' of the site. The Applicant also provided
documentation demonstrating that the local Lower Grandview Homeowners
Association was notified and no response was received.
B. The proposed residence that is above 16' in height does not significantly impair a
view from public property, which has been identified in the City's General Plan,
Coastal Specific Plan, or a public trail as defined in the Trails Network Plan. Due
to the location of the property and the topography of the immediate area, the
proposed residence will not be visible from a public viewing area or viewing site .
C. The proposed residence is not located on a ridge or promontory. The proposed
residence is located on an existing building pad and is not located on a
prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of
water on two sides.
D. The area of the proposed residence that is above 16' in height, as defined in
Section 17.20 .040(B) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, when
considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from
the viewing area of another parcel. Views of the distant mountains (San Gabriel),
P.C. Resolution No. 2019-16
Page 2 of 11 C-2
Los Angeles Basin, Queen's Necklace, and city lights are observed from the
properties in the immediate neighborhood in a northerly direction. The views from
the properties located south of the subject site above 16' in height are limited to
the sky, which is not considered a protected view. There is one property south of
the project site at 5348 Bayridge Road that contains a small portion of the
mountain-view along the right periphery of the view frame above 16' in height.
Given the minimal impairment and the location of the view at the right periphery
between existing trees, this is not considered a significant view impact. The
properties located to the east and west are at the same elevation as the subject
site and have a view of city lights in a northerly direction, which is not across or
over the subject site. The properties to the north are at or near the same
elevation as that of the project site and do not have views across the subject site .
E. The proposed residence that is above 16' is designed and situated in such a
manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of view . As described in
Section 20 above , the view impairment caused by the proposed residence above
16 ' in height to 5348 Bayridge Road is considered not significant. The proposed
residence includes adequate articulation between the lower and upper floors that
allows enhanced open space to reasonably minimize view impairment.
F. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application . Similar construction on the properties at 5345, 5337, 5329 and 5319
Bayridge Road would only impair the view of the sky, which is not considered a
protected view.
G . The proposed residence complies with all other Code requirements including , but
not limited to, the minimum required setbacks, number of parking, and maximum
allowed lot coverage .
H. The proposed residence is compatible with the immediate neighborhood
character in terms of structure size, bulk and mass, height, architectural style,
and lot coverage. The proposed residence will be 4,560ft2 in size, which is
compatible to recently constructed two-story residences located at 5329 and
5345 Bayridge Road. The varied fa9ade setbacks between the upper and lower
floors breaks up the apparent vertical mass and provides enhanced fa9ade
articulation along the fa9ades . The proposed 22.42' height of the residence is
compatible to the height of existing two-story residences in the area . The
proposed residence incorporates architectural and design elements consistent
with the neighboring properties including a low-pitched gable roof with clay tile
roofing and exterior stucco finish. The proposed lot coverage of 43.9% which is
compatible with the neighborhood that varies based on the topography and
layout of existing improvements.
The portion of the proposed residence that is above 16' in height does not result
in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the occupants of abutting
residences . The proposed covered balcony at the front of the residence will face
P.C . Resolution No. 2019 -16
Page 3 of 11 C-3
a public street (i.e. Bayridge Road), where there is no expectation of privacy. The
two decks located at the rear of the residence incorporate opaque side panels at
the east and west ends to minimize potential privacy impacts to the abutting
properties at 5319 and 5329 Bayridge Road. No second story windows are
proposed along the west fac;ade closest to the abutting property, and obscured or
opaque windows are proposed for most second-story windows along the east
fac;ade to further minimize privacy impacts to the neighboring property at 5319
Bayridge Road.
Section 3: A Site Plan Review is· warranted for the proposed ancillary
improvements to the residence and yard area, including decks, mechanical equipment,
and driveway and hardscape remodeling. The proposed ancillary improvements comply
with all applicable code requirements, including but not limited to, setbacks, parking,
and maximum lot coverage standards in the RS-5 zoning district.
Section 4: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for
appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must
be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 p.m. on
Wednesday, July 24, 2019. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter.
If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 p.m.
on July 24, 2019.
Section 5: Any challenge to this Resolution and the findings set forth therein,
must be filed within the 90 day statue of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure
§1094.6 and Section 17.86.100(8) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other record of proceedings, the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts P.C.
Resolution No. 2019-16, approving a Height Variation and Site Plan Review to allow the
demolition of an existing single-story residence to accommodate the construction of a
4,560ft2 (garage included) two-story residence with ancillary site improvements on the
property at 5325 Bayridge Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the
attached Exhibit "A".
P.C. Resolution No. 2019-16
Page 4 of 11 C-4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this gth day of July, 2019, by the following vote :
AYES: COMMISSIONERS NELSON, JAMES, SANTAROSA, PERESTAM, AND VICE
CHAIRMAN LEON
NOES: NONE
RECUSALS: NONE
ABSTENTIONS : NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER SAADATNEJADI AND CHAIRMAN BRADLEY
Ara Mihrania ,
Director of Community Development
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Gordon Leon,
Vice Chairman
P.C. Resolution No. 2019-16
Page 5 of 11
C-5
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00358
(HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW)
5325 BA YRIDGE ROAD
General Conditions :
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant
and property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they
have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Resolution. Failure to provide the written statement within 90 days of this
approval shall render this approval null and void.
2 . The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4 . 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.
5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040 of RPVMC, the Director of Community
Development is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans
and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve
substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans
and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision
and require approval by the final body that approved the original project, which
may require new and separate environmental review and public notification.
P.C. Resolution No. 2019-16
Page 6 of 11 C-6
6 . 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 RPVMC, including but
not limited to, height, setback, and lot coverage standards.
7 . 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 RPVMC and may result in
administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the RPVMC.
8 . 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 RPVMC within one year of the final effective date of this
Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless,
prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community
Development Department and approved by the Director of Community
Development.
9 . 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.
10 . Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the
City with the effective date of this Resolution.
11 . This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and
identified on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing
illegal or legal non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of
such illegal or legal non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these
conditions or on the stamped APPROVED plans.
12 . 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: debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete
asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture,
appliances or other household fixtures .
13 . All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat, and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste
and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be
removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or
temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable
bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the
P.C. Resolution No. 2019-16
Page 7 of 11
C-7
surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official.
14 . Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p .m .,
Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section
17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code . During demolition,
construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7:00 a .m . Monday
through Friday and before 9 :00 a .m . on Saturday, in accordance with the
permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so,
the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located so
as to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring
properties, subject to approval by the building official.
15 . If construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an
abutting property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation
for over 30 calendar days, the Applicant shall provide temporary construction
fencing, as defined in Section 17 .56 .050(C) of the RPVMC. Unless required to
protect against a safety hazard, temporary construction fencing shall not be
erected sooner than 15 days prior to commencement of construction.
16 . For all grading , landscaping and construction activities, the Applicant shall
employ effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/ or
watering .
Project Spec ific Con d itions
17 . This approval allows for the following :
A. Demolition of the existing 1,717ft2 single-story residence;
B. Construction of a 4,091ft2 two-story single-family residence with a 469ft2
attached 2-car garage area for a total structure size of 4,560ft2;
C. Construction of two second-story decks totaling 128ft2 in size along the
rear of the residence , with verandas located underneath the deck areas ;
D. Construction of a 58ft2 covered balcony at the east end of the front fac;:ade;
E. Reconfiguration of the existing indirect-access driveway to a direct-access
driveway with a larger driveway approach;
F. Construction of a 42" high front yard fence along the property line; and,
G. Installation of air conditioning equipment within a recessed area of the
east fa9ade.
18 . The height of the approved project shall be as depicted on the stamped
APPROVED plans and in no case shall the maximum height extend above a height
of 22.3', as measured from highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the
structure (elev . 675.50') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 697 .80');
P.C. Resolution No. 2019-16
Page 8 of 11 C-8
and an overall height of 22.42' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent
to the structure (elev. 675.00') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev.
697.80'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a
licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection, based
on the above mentioned instructions.
19 . The approved residence shall maintain a 21'-8" front yard setback, a 5'-0" east
side yard setback, 5' -0" west side yard setback and a 49' -11" rear yard setback.
BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a
licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
20. The proposed chimney may project a maximum of 2' into any required setback,
and shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the
Uniform Building Code. The chimney on the west side elevation shall be removed
from the project plans prior to submittal to Building and Safety.
21 . The bathroom and laundry room windows located on the second-story of the
residence along the east facing fagade shall incorporate obscure or opaque
glass.
22 . The Property Owner shall be responsible for maintaining translucent privacy side
panels for each of the second-story decks located along the north elevation of
the proposed residence.
23. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
project shall maintain a maximum of 43.9% lot coverage.
24 . Driveways, paved walkways and parking areas shall not cover more than 50% of
the required 20' front setback area. Any pervious or semi-pervious surface which
is part of or within a driveway or parking area shall not be considered to be
landscaping.
25 . A minimum 2-car garage shall be provided and maintained as a garage, and a
minimum of 2 unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a
driveway. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space
of no less than 9'-0" in width and 20'-0" in depth, with a minimum 7'-0" vertical
clearance. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground
space of no less than 9' in width by 20'-0" in depth.
26 . A driveway shall be a minimum width of 1 0'.
27. Exterior residential lighting shall comply with the standards of Section 17.56 .030
of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. All exterior lighting shall be so
arranged and shielded as to prevent direct illumination of abutting properties and
of vehicles passing on the public right-of-way. Luminaries shall be of a low-level
indirect and diffused type. All fluorescent bulbs or other lighting under canopies
P.C. Resolution No. 2019-16
Page 9 of 11 C-9
or on the building shall be covered with diffusing lenses and shielded .
28 . All grading, landscaping, and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering .
29 . The Applicant shall remove the project silhouette within 7 days after a final
decision has been rendered and the City's appeal process has been exhausted.
30 . The maintenance or operation of mechanical equipment, including but not limited
to AC units or pool filters, generating noise levels in excess of 65 dBA as
measured from the closest property line shall constitute a public nuisance in
accordance to Chapter 8.24 of the RPVMC.
Prior to Building Pe rmit Issuance
31 . The Applicant shall demonstrate the project's compliance with the South Coast
Air Quality Management District Rule 445 and the City Municipal Code
requirements regarding wood-burning devices .
32 . All applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety
Division, shall be approved by the City's geologist.
33 . A drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department.
34 . The Applicant shall obtain a permit from the Public Works Department and/or the
Community Development Department for proposed work within the public right -
of-way.
35 . PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, an earth
hauling permit shall be approved by the Public Works Department.
Prior to Certificate of Occupancy
36 . The Applicant shall submit complete Landscape Plans and associated Trust
Deposit to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development. The final approved landscaping shall be installed prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence . The landscape plans
may be required to comply with the State of California Water Efficient Landscape
requirements, as determined by the City's Landscape Architect.
Upon completion of the installation of the landscaped areas or altered
landscaped area subject to Section 15 .34 .1 00 , the project Applicant shall submit
a certificate of completion, in the form provided by the city , for review and
approval by the Director of Community Development. The certificate of
completion shall be executed by either the licensed landscaped architect,
P .C . Resolution No. 2019 -16
Page 10 of 11
C-10
licensed landscape contractor or the certified irrigation designer that signed any
of the documents submitted as part of the landscape documentation package.
37 . All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from
an existing power pole or other point of connection off-site prior to certificate of
occupancy.
P.C. Resolution No. 2019-16
Page 11 of 11 C-11
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Project Manager:
CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN~
JULY 9, 2019
HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.
ZON2017-00245); PROJECT ADDRESS-5325 BAYRIDGE ROAD
(LANDOWNER-MING-HO CHEN I APPLICANT -BEN CAUTHEN,
PACIFIC DESIGN GROUP)
Octavio Silva, Senior Planner d'.~.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Review the Applicant's project revisions in response to the Planning Commission's
direction at the May 14th meeting; and,
2) If the project revisions are acceptable, adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2019-_;
approving a Height Variation and Site Plan Review to demolish an existing single-
story residence to accommodate the construction of a new 4,560ft2 (garage
included) two-story residence with ancillary site improvements, subject to the
Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A".
BACKGROUND
On May 14, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which
time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
After considering public testimony and concerns raised by Staff (see attached May 14th
Staff Report), the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to June 25, 2019,
allowing the Applicant additional time to address concerns related to neighborhood
compatibility including structure size, bulk and mass, and building height, as well as
privacy impacts.
On June 10, 2019, the Applicant submitted revised project plans. In response, on June
12, 2019, Staff mailed a courtesy notice to all interested parties informing them that the
revised project plans were available for review. Staff received public comments from three
neighboring property owners (attached) raising concerns with the revised project, which
are discussed throughout this report.
D-1
On June 17, 2019, the Applicant informed Staff that the project silhouette was modified to
reflect the revised plans. As the modified silhouette was installed 3-days prior to the
transmittal of the June 25th Planning Commission agenda packet, Staff recommended
that the public hearing be continued to July 9th to provide adequate time for interested
parties to assess the project revisions and provide comments (See attached June 25th
Staff Report). The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 9th.
DISCUSSION
The original project presented to the Planning Commission at the May 14th public hearing
consisted of the demolition of an existing single-story residence to accommodate the
construction of a new 5,304ft2 (garage included) two-story residence measuring 24.6’ in
height, a 438ft2 deck at the rear of the residence with ancillary site improvements. At that
time, neighborhood compatibility concerns were raised, specifically regarding the
structure size, bulk and mass, and building height, as well as privacy impacts. To address
these concerns, the Planning Commission directed the Applicant to make the following
changes to the project design and continued the public hearing:
• Reduce the structure size and height;
• Recess the second-story from the first-story along the east façade;
• Reduce the size of the rear deck and incorporate solid walls or translucent side
panels to allow the transmission of light, but not vision.
On June 10, 2019, the Applicant submitted revised plans and subsequently modified the
project silhouette to reflect the following changes:
• Reducing the structure size from 5,304ft² to 4,560ft²;
• Reducing the structure height from 24.6’ to 22.8’;
• Recessing the second-story from the first-story along the east façade by 5’ near
the front and up to 10’ at the rear of the residence; and,
• Replacing the 438ft² rear facade deck with two smaller decks with translucent
privacy side panels totaling 128ft² in size.
The proposed structure size reduction from 5,304ft2 to 4,560ft2 (744ft2 reduction) is
primarily due to reducing the square footage of the second-story. Additionally, the
Applicant reduced the structure height from 24.6’ to 22.8’ (an overall reduction of 1.8’ in
height). The Applicant’s design revisions are comparable to the previous Commission-
approved two-story residences on the same side of the street (5329 Bayridge Road at
4,324ft2 measuring 22.12’ in height and 5345 Bayridge Road at 4,750ft2 measuring 22.42’
in height). These two structures are within 3 properties of the project site. By reducing the
square footage of the second-story, the Applicant was able to recess the second-story
along the east façade by 5’ near the front of the residence and up to 10’ at the rear of the
residence, as shown in the image below.
D-2
Mr. Enders residing at 5319 Bayridge Road (immediately to the east) submitted an email
requesting that the project be further revised to be consistent with Staff’s recommended
changes reflected in the May 14th Staff Report (attached). Specifically, the proposed
structure size should be further reduced from 4,560ft2 to 4,500ft2, structure height be
further reduced from 22.8’ to 22.42’, and the second-story be recessed from the first-story
by 10’ along the entire east side façade. Staff also received public comments from Mr.
and Mrs. Semelka at 5329 Bayridge Road (immediately to the west), which expressed
concerns with the revised project’s bulk and mass, building height and structure size.
Specifically, they requested that the overall building height be reduced by requiring the
Applicant to grade down the project site and to further reduce the square footage to be
more align with what the City Council approved in 2008 for their residence (4,324ft2
(garage included)). In addition, their comments expressed a view impairment concern
regarding the easterly veranda located in the rear yard and requested that it be removed.
As of the preparation of this report, Staff was unable to coordinate a site visit to the
Semelka property in order to conduct a view analysis of the expressed view impairment.
Staff intends to conduct a site visit prior to the July 9th meeting and will provide the
Commission with additional information at that time. That said, based on the revised
plans, the overall height of the veranda would be within the “by-right” height (16’/20’) limit
and would therefore not be subject to the Height Variation permit findings regarding view
impairment.
Staff believes that the design revisions consisting of a reduced structure size and building
height without the need for additional grading as well as enhanced second-story setbacks
along the east and west side façades, is generally consistent with Staff’s recommended
changes and the Commission’s direction at the May 14th meeting. Particularly, the revised
design further softens the apparent vertical mass of the structure as viewed from
neighboring properties, resulting in a design that is comparable with other Commission-
approved two-story residences along the same side of Bayridge Road.
As for privacy impacts, the original project proposed a 438ft2 second-story deck at the
rear of the residence (shown in yellow below). The revised design replaces the 438ft²
second-story rear deck with two smaller decks (shown in red below) totaling 128ft2 and
which incorporate a solid decorative side panel on each side of the decks.
D-3
Mr. and Mrs. Semelka at 5329 Bayridge Road both expressed concerns that the solid
decorative panel does not provide adequate privacy screening. In response and after
further assessment and discussion with Staff, the Applicant further revised the design of
the decks to include expanded translucent side panels at the west and east ends to further
enhance the screening of the abutting neighbors’ properties (see below):
Mr. and Mrs. Semelka at 5329 Bayridge Road also expressed a privacy concern related
to the proposed second-story west facing windows. As part of the project revisions, the
Applicant has removed the second-floor windows along the rear half of the west façade
D-4
and provided a 23’ setback to the two west facing windows. The property owner at 5319
Bayridge Road (Enders) also expressed privacy concerns with the second-floor windows
along the east façade. To address his concern, the Applicant has reduced the floor area
of the second story, provided larger second floor setbacks, further articulated the side
façade, and agreed to install obscure or opaque glass for all of the second floor windows
along the east façade, with the exception of a bedroom window that faces the driveway
area at 5319 Bayridge Road. This change is memorialized in the attached Conditions of
Approval. With these revisions, Staff believes that the revised project will not cause
adverse privacy impacts two both adjacent property owners.
Based on the proposed design revisions, Staff believes that the Applicant has adequately
addressed Staff’s and the neighbors’ concerns, as well as the Commission’s direction
expressed at the May 14th meeting.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Permit Streamlining Act
The original decision deadline for this project was May 19, 2019. However, on May 14,
2019, the Applicant granted a 90-day extension to the action deadline, resulting in a new
action deadline of August 17, 2019.
Public Correspondence
As a result of the revised project plans, Staff received public comments from neighboring
property owners at 5319 and 5329 Bayridge Road continuing to raise concerns with
neighborhood compatibility, privacy impacts, and chimney safety. As described above,
Staff believes that the concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility in terms of structure
size, height, and mass and bulk, as well as privacy, have been adequately addressed. As
for chimney safety, the property owners at 5319 (Enders) and 5329 (Semelka) Bayridge
Road both expressed health and safety concerns with the east and west chimneys facing
their properties. If the project is approved, the construction and operation of the chimney
would be required to comply with State Building Code requirements and would be subject
to permitting and inspections by the City’s Building and Safety Division to mitigate health
and safety concerns. The public comment from the property owner at 5319 Bayridge
Road also expresses a view impairment concern with the same chimney. On June 26,
2019, Staff visited the property at 5319 Bayridge Road and found that the chimney does
not impair a city light, mountain or ocean view from the viewing area (living room) of the
residence. Specifically, the location of the chimney will be located along the easterly
property line, where views from 5319 Bayridge Road are oriented in the opposite direction
towards the rear of the property and away from the project site.
Environmental Assessment
Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section
D-5
15303(a) (Construction of Single-Family Residence) of the California Guidelines for
Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the project includes the demolition and
construction of one single family residence in a residential zone that is currently
developed with residential structures.
CONCLUSION
Based on the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review
the revised project design and if deemed acceptable, adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2019-
__; approving a Height Variation and Site Plan Review to allow the demolition of an
existing single-story residence to accommodate the construction of a 4,560ft2 (garage
included) two-story residence with ancillary site improvements, subject to the Conditions
of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit “A”.
ATTACHMENTS
• P.C. Resolution No. 2019-__
o Exhibit “A”- Conditions of Approval
• Planning Commission Staff Report Dated May 14, 2019
• Planning Commission Staff Report Dated June 25, 2019
• Revised Project Plans
• Public Comments
D-6
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH
CONDITIONS, A HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,560FT2
(GARAGE INCLUDED) TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH
ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5325 BAYRIDGE ROAD (CASE NO. ZON2016-
00358)
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2016, the Applicant submitted Height Variation and
Site Plan Review applications requesting to demolish an existing single-story residence
in order to construct a new two-story residence with ancillary improvements; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2016, Staff deemed the application incomplete due to
missing information on the project plans; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019, after several submittals of additional information,
the application was deemed complete for processing; and
WHEREAS, March 21, 2019, a public notice was mailed to property owners
within a 500’ radius of the project site and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula
News pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing, considered public testimony expressing concerns with the project
design, and continued the public hearing to its June 25, 2019 meeting to allow the
Applicant an opportunity to address neighborhood compatibility concerns including
structure size, bulk and mass, and building height, as well as privacy impacts; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2019, the Applicant submitted revised plans that
reduced the structure size from 5,304ft2 to 4,560ft2 and the structure height from 24.6’ to
22.8’; recessed the second story between 5’ and 10’ along the east facade; and
replaced the 438ft2 rear facade deck with two smaller decks with translucent side panels
totaling 128ft2 in size; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2019, the Applicant revised the project silhouette, which
was installed 3-days prior to the transmittal of the June 25th Planning Commission
agenda packet; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2019, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to July 9, 2019 in order to provide adequate time for interested parties to assess
the revised project plans and silhouette; and
D-7
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), the proposed project has been found to be categorically
exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303(a)); and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The proposed project involves the demolition of existing 1,717ft2
single-story residence to accommodate the construction of a new 4,560ft2 (garage
included) two-story residence measuring 22.8’ in height with related site improvements.
Section 2: A Height Variation permit is warranted for the construction of a
22.8’ tall two-story residence exceeding the 16’/20’ by-right height limitation, based on
the following findings:
A. The Applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process
guidelines and procedures established by the City Council by obtaining 70% of
the signatures from properties within 100’ of the subject site and 36% of the
signatures from properties within 500’ of the site. The Applicant also provided
documentation demonstrating that the local Lower Grandview Homeowners
Association was notified and no response was received.
B. The proposed residence that is above 16’ in height does not significantly impair a
view from public property, which has been identified in the City’s General Plan,
Coastal Specific Plan, or a public trail as defined in the Trails Network Plan. Due
to the location of the property and the topography of the immediate area, the
proposed residence will not be visible from a public viewing area or viewing site.
C. The proposed residence is not located on a ridge or promontory. The proposed
residence is located on an existing building pad and is not located on a
prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of
water on two sides.
D. The area of the proposed residence that is above 16’ in height, as defined in
Section 17.20.040(B) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, when
considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from
the viewing area of another parcel. Views of the distant mountains (San Gabriel),
Los Angeles Basin, Queen’s Necklace, and city lights are observed from the
D-8
properties in the immediate neighborhood in a northerly direction. The views from
the properties located south of the subject site above 16’ in height are limited to
the sky, which is not considered a protected view. There is one property south of
the project site at 5348 Bayridge Road that contains a small portion of the
mountain-view along the right periphery of the view frame above 16’ in height.
Given the minimal impairment and the location of the view at the right periphery
between existing trees, this is not considered a significant view impact. The
properties located to the east and west are at the same elevation as the subject
site and have a view of city lights in a northerly direction, which is not across or
over the subject site. The properties to the north are at or near the same
elevation as that of the project site and do not have views across the subject site.
E. The proposed residence that is above 16’ is designed and situated in such a
manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of view. As described in
Section 2D above, the view impairment caused by the proposed residence above
16’ in height to 5348 Bayridge Road is considered not significant. The proposed
residence includes adequate articulation between the lower and upper floors that
allows enhanced open space to reasonably minimize view impairment.
F. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application. Similar construction on the properties at 5345, 5337, 5329 and 5319
Bayridge Road would only impair the view of the sky, which is not considered a
protected view.
G. The proposed residence complies with all other Code requirements including, but
not limited to, the minimum required setbacks, number of parking, and maximum
allowed lot coverage.
H. The proposed residence is compatible with the immediate neighborhood
character in terms of structure size, bulk and mass, height, architectural style,
and lot coverage. The proposed residence will be 4,560ft2 in size, which is
compatible to recently constructed two-story residences located at 5329 and
5345 Bayridge Road. The varied façade setbacks between the upper and lower
floors breaks up the apparent vertical mass and provides enhanced façade
articulation along the façades. The proposed 22.8’ height of the residence is
compatible to the height of existing two-story residences in the area. The
proposed residence incorporates architectural and design elements consistent
with the neighboring properties including a low-pitched gable roof with clay tile
roofing and exterior stucco finish. The proposed lot coverage of 43.9% which is
compatible with the neighborhood that varies based on the topography and
layout of existing improvements.
The portion of the proposed residence that is above 16’ in height does not result
in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the occupants of abutting
residences. The proposed covered balcony at the front of the residence will face
a public street (i.e. Bayridge Road), where there is no expectation of privacy. The
D-9
two decks located at the rear of the residence incorporate opaque side panels at
the east and west ends to minimize potential privacy impacts to the abutting
properties at 5319 and 5329 Bayridge Road. No second story windows are
proposed along the west façade closest to the abutting property, and obscured or
opaque windows are proposed for most second-story windows along the east
façade to further minimize privacy impacts to the neighboring property at 5319
Bayridge Road.
Section 3: A Site Plan Review is warranted for the proposed ancillary
improvements to the residence and yard area, including decks, mechanical equipment,
and driveway and hardscape remodeling. The proposed ancillary improvements comply
with all applicable code requirements, including but not limited to, setbacks, parking,
and maximum lot coverage standards in the RS-5 zoning district.
Section 4: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for
appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must
be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 p.m. on
Wednesday, July 24, 2019. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter.
If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission’s decision will be final at 5:30 p.m.
on July 24, 2019.
Section 5: Any challenge to this Resolution and the findings set forth therein,
must be filed within the 90 day statue of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure
§1094.6 and Section 17.86.100(B) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other record of proceedings, the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts P.C.
Resolution No. ___, approving a Height Variation and Site Plan Review to allow the
demolition of an existing single-story residence to accommodate the construction of a
4,560ft2 (garage included) two-story residence with ancillary site improvements on the
property at 5325 Bayridge Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the
attached Exhibit “A”.
D-10
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSALS:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
David Bradley,
Chairman
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Director of Community Development
Secretary to the Planning Commission
D-11
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2016-00358
(HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW)
5325 BAYRIDGE ROAD
General Conditions:
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant
and property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they
have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Resolution. Failure to provide the written statement within 90 days of this
approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. 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.
5. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040 of RPVMC, the Director of Community
Development is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans
and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve
substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans
and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision
and require approval by the final body that approved the original project, which
may require new and separate environmental review and public notification.
D-12
6. 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 RPVMC, including but
not limited to, height, setback, and lot coverage standards.
7. 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 RPVMC and may result in
administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the RPVMC.
8. 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 RPVMC within one year of the final effective date of this
Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless,
prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community
Development Department and approved by the Director of Community
Development.
9. 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.
10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the
City with the effective date of this Resolution.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and
identified on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing
illegal or legal non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of
such illegal or legal non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these
conditions or on the stamped APPROVED plans.
12. 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: debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete
asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture,
appliances or other household fixtures.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat, and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official. All construction waste
and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be
removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or
temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable
bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the
D-13
surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official.
14. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section
17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition,
construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7:00 a.m. Monday
through Friday and before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, in accordance with the
permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so,
the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located so
as to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring
properties, subject to approval by the building official.
15. If construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an
abutting property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation
for over 30 calendar days, the Applicant shall provide temporary construction
fencing, as defined in Section 17.56.050(C) of the RPVMC. Unless required to
protect against a safety hazard, temporary construction fencing shall not be
erected sooner than 15 days prior to commencement of construction.
16. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the Applicant shall
employ effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/ or
watering.
Project Specific Conditions
17. This approval allows for the following:
A. Demolition of the existing 1,717ft2 single-story residence;
B. Construction of a 4,091ft2 two-story single-family residence with a 469ft2
attached 2-car garage area for a total structure size of 4,560ft²;
C. Construction of two second-story decks totaling 128ft2 in size along the
rear of the residence, with verandas located underneath the deck areas;
D. Construction of a 58ft2 covered balcony at the east end of the front façade;
E. Reconfiguration of the existing indirect-access driveway to a direct-access
driveway with a larger driveway approach;
F. Construction of a 42” high front yard fence along the property line; and,
G. Installation of air conditioning equipment within a recessed area of the
east façade.
18. The height of the approved project shall be as depicted on the stamped
APPROVED plans and in no case shall the maximum height extend above a height
of 22.3’, as measured from highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the
structure (elev. 675.50’) to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 697.80’);
D-14
and an overall height of 22.8’ as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent
to the structure (elev. 675.00’) to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev.
697.80’). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a
licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection, based
on the above mentioned instructions.
19. The approved residence shall maintain a 21’-8” front yard setback, a 5’-0” east
side yard setback, 5’-0” west side yard setback and a 49’-11” rear yard setback.
BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a
licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
20. The proposed chimney may project a maximum of 2' into any required setback,
and shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the
Uniform Building Code.
21. The bathroom and laundry room windows located on the second-story of the
residence along the east facing façade shall incorporate obscure or opaque
glass.
22. The Property Owner shall be responsible for maintaining translucent privacy side
panels for each of the second-story decks located along the north elevation of
the proposed residence.
23. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
project shall maintain a maximum of 43.9% lot coverage.
24. Driveways, paved walkways and parking areas shall not cover more than 50% of
the required 20’ front setback area. Any pervious or semi-pervious surface which
is part of or within a driveway or parking area shall not be considered to be
landscaping.
25. A minimum 2-car garage shall be provided and maintained as a garage, and a
minimum of 2 unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a
driveway. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space
of no less than 9'-0” in width and 20'-0” in depth, with a minimum 7'-0” vertical
clearance. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground
space of no less than 9’ in width by 20’-0” in depth.
26. A driveway shall be a minimum width of 10’.
27. Exterior residential lighting shall comply with the standards of Section 17.56.030
of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. All exterior lighting shall be so
arranged and shielded as to prevent direct illumination of abutting properties and
of vehicles passing on the public right-of-way. Luminaries shall be of a low-level
indirect and diffused type. All fluorescent bulbs or other lighting under canopies
or on the building shall be covered with diffusing lenses and shielded.
D-15
28. All grading, landscaping, and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
29. The Applicant shall remove the project silhouette within 7 days after a final
decision has been rendered and the City’s appeal process has been exhausted.
30. The maintenance or operation of mechanical equipment, including but not limited
to AC units or pool filters, generating noise levels in excess of 65 dBA as
measured from the closest property line shall constitute a public nuisance in
accordance to Chapter 8.24 of the RPVMC.
Prior to Building Permit Issuance
31. The Applicant shall demonstrate the project's compliance with the South Coast
Air Quality Management District Rule 445 and the City Municipal Code
requirements regarding wood-burning devices.
32. All applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety
Division, shall be approved by the City’s geologist.
33. A drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department.
34. The Applicant shall obtain a permit from the Public Works Department and/or the
Community Development Department for proposed work within the public right-
of-way.
35. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, an earth
hauling permit shall be approved by the Public Works Department.
Prior to Certificate of Occupancy
36. The Applicant shall submit complete Landscape Plans and associated Trust
Deposit to the Planning Division for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development. The final approved landscaping shall be installed prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. The landscape plans
may be required to comply with the State of California Water Efficient Landscape
requirements, as determined by the City’s Landscape Architect.
Upon completion of the installation of the landscaped areas or altered
landscaped area subject to Section 15.34.100, the project Applicant shall submit
a certificate of completion, in the form provided by the city, for review and
approval by the Director of Community Development. The certificate of
completion shall be executed by either the licensed landscaped architect,
licensed landscape contractor or the certified irrigation designer that signed any
D-16
of the documents submitted as part of the landscape documentation package.
37. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from
an existing power pole or other point of connection off-site prior to certificate of
occupancy.
D-17
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STAFF
REPORT
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ~
FROM: ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR 0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: MAY 14, 2019
SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2016 -00358)
PROJECT
ADDRESS: 5325 BAYRIDGE ROAD
APPLICANT: BEN CAUTHEN, PACIFIC DESIGN
GROUP
LANDOWNER: MINGO HO CHIN
STAFF OCTAVIO SILVA
L.!:i~!!!!!!!!i::!!!:!!:'!~=:!!!!!!!!:.::!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~ COO ROI NA TOR: SEN I OR PLANNER
REQUESTED ACTION: ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 5,304ft2 TWO-STORY
RESIDENCE MEASURING 24.6' IN HEIGHT WITH ANCILLARY SITE
IMPROVEMENTS.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) REVIEW THE PROPOSED PROJECT DESIGN AS IT RELATES TO STAFF'S
RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
CONCERNS ; 2) PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH DIRECTION; AND, 3) CONTINUE
THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 25, 2019, PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT
AGREES TO A TIME EXTENSION PURUSANT TO THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT.
REFERENCES:
ZONING:
LAND USE:
CODE SECTIONS:
GENERAL PLAN:
01203.0005/464108 .1
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -RS-5
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
17.02, 17.48, 17.70, 17.78 AND 17.80
RESIDENTIAL -2-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
D-18
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE 2
TRAILS PLAN:
SPECIFIC PLAN:
CEQA:
ACTION DEADLINE:
N/A
N/A
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15303-NEW CONSTRUCTION)
MAY 19, 2019
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF PROPERTY: NONE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING BETWEEN 500' AND 1,000' OF PROPERTY: NONE
BACKGROUND
On August 9, 2016, the Applicant submitted Height Variation and Site Plan Review
applications to demolish an existing single-family residence to accommodate the
construction of a new two-story residence with ancillary site improvements.
After reviewing the submitted information, Staff deemed the application incomplete for
processing on August 19, 2016. The Applicant submitted revisions on multiple
occasions, with the final submittal on March 1, 2019. On March 20, 2019, the
application was deemed complete for processing.
On March 21, 2019, a public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500' radius
of the project site and published in the Peninsula News. Staff received written public
comments from four neighboring property owners (attached) in response to the notice,
which are discussed throughout this Staff Report.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is a 9,484ft2 lot located at the north end of the intersection at Bayridge
Road and Birchfield Avenue. The property is a pad lot (less than 5% slope) with a rear
third of the lot consisting of a descending extreme slope (greater than 35%). The project
site is currently improved with an existing 1,717ft2 single-story residence with an
attached garage and associated site improvements. The project site is surrounded by
single-family residences to the east, west, north and south. The General Plan Land Use
and zoning designations for the site are Residential 1-2 du/ac and Single-Family
Residential 5 du/ac (RS-5), respectively.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of the following:
• Demolition of the existing 1, 717ft2 single-story residence;
• Construction of a 4,659ft2 two-story, single-family residence with a 645ft2
attached 3-car garage area for a total structure size of 5,304ft2;
• Construction of a 438ft2 second story deck and veranda underneath the deck at
the rear fa9ade;
D-19
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT -(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE3
• Construction of a 62.5ft2 covered balcony at the east end of the front fa9ade;
• Reconfiguration of the existing indirect-access driveway to a direct-access
driveway with a larger driveway approach;
• Construction of a 42" high front yard fence;
• Installation of air conditioning equipment within a recessed area of the east
fa9ade.
The proposed residence will be 24.55' in height, as measured from highest elevation of
the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 675.55') to the highest proposed roof
ridgeline (elev. 700.1 O'); and an overall height of 24.6' as measured from lowest finished
grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 675.50') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline
(elev. 700.1 O').
In addition to the description above, a summary of the critical project statistics for the
RS-5 zoning district are described in Table 1 below for reference:
i bl 1 P . t St t· t· a e . ro1ec a IS /CS:
CODE EXISTING PROPOSED CRITERIA REQUIREMENT
Lot Size 8,000ft2 9,484ft2 No Change
Structure Size N/A 1, 717ft2 5,304ft2
(garage included)
Setbacks
Front: 20' 17.58' 21.67'
Side (east) 5' 7.58' 5'
Side (west) 5' 8.99' 5'
Rear 15' 66.21' 50'
Lot Coverage (%) 52% 31% 46%
Enclosed Parking 2 spaces
(<5,000ft2 2 spaces 3 spaces
structure)
Structure Height -
Pad Lot
Lowest finished
grade adjacent to the 20'-0" 13.39' 24.6' building
foundation/slab.
D-20
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE4
CODE EXISTING CRITERIA REQUIREMENT
Highest existing
grade adjacent to the 16'-0" 12.25' building
foundation/slab.
CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS
PROPOSED
24.55'
The following is Staff's analysis on the requested Height Variation and Site Plan Review
applications, as it relates to the required findings for each application.
HEIGHT VARIATION
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) §17.02.040(8)(1) allows "by-right"
additions to an existing structure on pad lots within residential zoning districts up to 16'
in height, as measured from the pre-construction grade at the highest point on the lot to
be covered by the structure to the ridgeline; and 20' in height, as measured from the
point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade to the highest point of
the structure. RPVMC §17.02.040(8)(1) allows these heights to be increased for pad
lots to a maximum height of 26' with the approval of a Height Variation. Since the
proposed two-story residence exceeds the 16'/20' building envelope, a Height Variation
is required. Pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.040(C)(1 )(a)(ii), (iii) & (iv), Planning
Commission review is required because the area of the structure which exceeds 16' in
height (the second story footprint) exceeds 75% of the first story footprint area
(residence and attached garage), 60% of the garage footprint is covered by a structure
exceeding 16', and the portion exceeding 16' in height is being developed as part of a
new single-family residence. RPVMC §17.02.040(C)(1 )(e) sets forth the following
findings (in bold type) required in order for the Planning Commission to approve a
Height Variation.
1. The applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process
established by the city.
RPVMC §17.02.040(C)(1)(b) requires the Applicant to take reasonable steps
established by the City Council to consult with the property owners within 500' of the
project site. Early neighbor consultation may be deemed adequate by the Planning
Commission if the signatures of at least 60% of the landowners within 500'; or 70% of
the landowners within 100' and 25% of the total number of landowners within 500'
(including those within 100') are obtained; or if mailed proof of notification of all
landowners within 500' is provided, as well as proof of notification of the homeowners'
association, if one exists. The Applicant obtained 7 signatures from properties within
100' of the subject site for a total of 70% and 15 signatures from properties within 500'
of the site for a total of 36%. The Applicant provided documentation, which
demonstrates that the Lower Grandview Homeowners Association was notified.
D-21
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGES
Therefore, the Applicant has complied with the early notification consultation process
and this finding can be made.
2. The proposed new structure that is above 16' in height or addition to an
existing structure that is above 16' 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 a city-designated viewing area.
The City's General Plan identifies viewing points (turnouts along vehicular corridors for
the purposes of viewing) and viewing sites (public site areas, which due to their physical
locations on the Peninsula, provide a significant viewing vantage) within the City. Due to
the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed
residence will not be visible from a public viewing area or viewing site, as defined by the
General Plan. Also, the property is not located within the City's Coastal Specific Plan.
As such, the proposed project would not impair a view from public property, which has
been identified in the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, or a public trail as
identified in the Trails Network Plan. As such, this finding can be made.
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" (RPVMC §17.96.1610). 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" (RPVMC § 17. 96 .1480). The proposed residence
is located on a building pad 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, this finding
can be made.
4. The area of a proposed new structure that is above 16' in height or an addition
to an existing structure that is above 16' in height, as defined in Section
17.02.040(8) of the Municipal Code, when considered exclusive of existing
foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another
parcel.
Based on Staff's view assessment, views in the area are primarily oriented to the north
and consist of the queen's necklace, city lights, and distant mountains (San Gabriel
Mountains). As a result of the topography in the area and the development of the tract,
views from properties along the south side of Bayridge Road and on Birchfield Avenue
have the potential to be impaired by the development of two-story residences along the
north side of Bayridge Road. Staff's view assessment is described below:
5318 Bayridge Road
Bayridge Road in the general vicinity of the project site slopes down in an easterly
direction. Properties along the south side of Bayridge Road observe views between and
D-22
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGES
over residences on the north side of Bayridge Road. In response to the public notice,
Staff received one written public comment (attached) from the property owners at 5318
Bayridge Road (Mr . & Mrs . Demetz), a property located on the south side of Bayridge
Road, raising concerns with potential view impairment as a result of the proposed
project. Specifically, they indicated that the proposed project would impair a view of the
Queen's Necklace as observed from their second story roof deck. Pursuant to RPVMC
§ 17.02.040(A)(15), a 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".
While a review of City records found that the property at 5318 Bayridge Road is
developed with a single-story residence; no records were found for the construction of
the second story roof deck. In visiting the property on April 24, 2019 and based on the
Code definition of viewing area, Staff determined that the primary viewing area with the
best and most important view is the dining room located on the first floor of this single-
story residence . While views may be impaired from the second story roof deck, as this
area has been improved without the benefit of permits and would currently not be
permitted per the Development Code's requirements for roof decks, views from the
second story roof deck are not being assessed as part of this view analysis. Based on
Staff's view analysis from the primary viewing area, views of city lights, the ocean and
mountains are located within the by-right (16'/20') height limitations, as shown in the
photograph below, and therefore, not protected.
5328 Bayridge Road
Although Staff did not receive any written correspondence as a result of the current
proposal or public notice, Staff contacted the property owner at 5328 Bayridge Road to
conduct a view analysis. On April 29, 2019, Staff visited the property, which is located
on the south side of Bayridge Road. Staff's analysis determined that the view of the city
lights and mountains from the primary viewing area of the residence (living room) would
D-23
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE7
be located within the by-right height (16'/20') height limitations of the existing residence,
as shown in the photograph below, and therefore, not protected.
5338 Bayridge Road
Although Staff did not receive any written correspondence as a result of the current
proposal and public notice, Staff contacted the property owner at 5338 Bayridge Road
to conduct a view analysis. This property is located on the south side of Bayridge Road
and has views in a northerly direction that consist of city lights and mountains. On April
24, 2019, Staff visited the property to conduct a view analysis and determined that the
proposed project is not visible from the primary viewing area of the residence (kitchen),
as shown in the photograph below .
D-24
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016 -00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGES
5348 Bayridge Road
The property owners at 5348 Bayridge Road (Bradley-attached) submitted a comment
letter expressing project concerns with potential day-time and night-time view impacts
as observed from various locations throughout their home including the front porch,
living room and bedroom areas. Staff visited this property, which is located on the south
side of Bayridge Road, and determined that the views are experienced in a northerly
direction and consist of city lights and mountains . While views may be observed from
various locations throughout the residence, the primary viewing area , where the best
and most important view exists, was previously designated by Staff as the living room
area, in part due to a view analysis that was conducted for the Height Variation
application at 5345 Bayridge Road (ZON2012-00172). As such, Staff's most recent view
analysis was conducted from the same viewing area, the front window located in the
living room, during the day-time. The view analysis determined the portion of the view
above 16' in height consists of a small portion of the mountain view along the right
periphery of the view frame (see red shaded area), as shown in the photograph below,
and is therefore not considered significant. The remaining portion of the view is located
within the by-right (16'/20') height limitations, and therefore, not protected.
Birchfield Avenue
Birchfield Avenue slopes up from the project site in a southerly direction . Staff received
one public comment from the property owner at 5319 Bayridge Road (Enders -
attached), expressing, among other things, a general view impairment concern as
observed from properties along Birchfield Avenue . Although Staff did not receive any
written correspondence from property owners on Birchfield Avenue expressing
concerns with the current proposal, Staff contacted some property owners on Birchfield
Avenue (in the general vicinity of the project) in order to conduct a view analysis. On
April 24, 2019, City Staff visited 26112 and 26120 Birchfield Avenue to conduct view
D-25
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE 9
assessments, but was not able to gain access to the properties. Based on Staff's
general review of these properties, aerial photographs, and topographic conditions in
the area, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project above 16' would only impair
views of the sky from the properties along Birchfield Avenue, which is not a protected
view. Views of city lights would be located within the by-right (16'/20') height limitations,
as evidenced by the impairment caused by the existing residence, and therefore, not
protected.
Based on the above, Staff believes that the proposed project does not result in a
significant view impairment to any property and 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.
In Finding No. 4, Staff determined that the proposed project resulted in a view
impairment, albeit not significant, from the property located at 5348 Bayridge Road.
Staff is of the opinion that the second floor of the proposed residence can be
redesigned so as to minimize the view impairment from this property. This can be
achieved by reducing the overall structure height and structure size (primarily within the
second floor) along with providing enhanced second-story setbacks, as discussed in
greater detail in Finding No. 8. Therefore, this finding cannot be made without project
design modifications.
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.
As previously stated, there is no potential for significant view impairment for portions of
the proposed structure which exceed 16' in height, as seen from the viewing area of
another parcel. However, the comment letter submitted by the property owners at 5348
Bayridge Road (Bradley-attached) express a cumulative view impairment concern as a
result of the proposed project and existing two-story residences located on the north
side of Bayridge Road (see aerial photograph on the next page).
D-26
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT -(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE10
As evidenced in the view analysis photograph taken from the property at 5348 Bayridge
Road presented in Finding No. 4, the residences at 5329, 5337 and 5345 Bayridge
Road, which are located to the west of the project site, are within the view frame. As the
properties at 5329 and 5345 Bayridge Road are already improved with two-story
residences, no further view impairment can be created from these properties . If a
second story addition were proposed at 5337 Bayridge Road, Staff believes that the
portion exceeding 16 ' in height would impair a view of the sky from the viewing area of
the Bradley residence, and the City 's View Ordinance does not protect views of the sky .
Staff also considered similar construction , as observed from properties at 5328 and
5318 Bayridge Road, on adjacent parcels located at 5319 , 5313 and 5307 Bayridge
Road . Staff is of the opinion that due to view orientation previously stated in Finding No .
4, similar structures on these properties would not present a significant cumulative view
impairment to these properties located on the south side of Bayridge Road because the
area above 16' in height would only impair the view of the sky, which is not protected .
Therefore, this finding can be made.
7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements.
Aside from the requested Height Variation to exceed 16' in height, the proposed project
complies with all other code requirements, including, but not limited to, the minimum
required setbacks, the number of parking spaces, and maximum allowed lot coverage,
as evidenced in the Project Statistics table above. Therefore, this finding can be made.
8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood
character.
D-27
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE 11
The City recognizes that a good portion of the existing housing stock in the City is
nearing the end of its general lifespan, and to that regard, it is to be expected that
homes will undergo a significant remodel or a tear down/rebuild within the coming
years. That said, the City's Neighborhood Compatibility finding is intended to ensure
such projects are designed in a manner that allows the expansion or reconstruction,
while preserving the character of the existing neighborhood. The Neighborhood
Compatibility finding assesses a project's design to other structures within the
immediate neighborhood, which is generally comprised of the twenty (20) closest
properties located within the same zoning district, as illustrated in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis
Lot Size Structure Size Number of
Address (SF) (SF) Stories
5302 Bayridge Road 17,763 2,730 1
5303 Bayridge Road 21,562 5,593 2
5306 Bayridge Road 14,319 3,050 1
5307 Bayridge Road 15,748 2,208 1
5312 Bayridge Road 10, 137 1,725 1
5313 Bayridge Road 9,596 2,344 1
5318 Bayridge Road 8,691 2,199 1
5319 Bayridge Road 9,537 1,634 1
5328 Bayridge Road 8,386 1,703 1
5329 Bayridge Road 9,472 4,324 2
5337 Bayridqe Road 9,482 2,570* 1
5338 Bayridge Road 7,420 1,634 1
5345 Bayridge Road 10,940 4,750 2
5348 Bayridge Road 9,183 1,716 1
5351 Bayridge Road 12,782 2,615 1
5357 Bayridge Road 15,873 3,624 1
5402 Bayridge Road 7,876 1,694 1
5405 Bayridge Road 15,082 2,684 1
5410 Bayridge Road 7,812 1,750* 1
5411 Bayridge Road 16,013 2,081 1
Average 11,884 2,631 1
5325 Bayridge Road
existing 9,484 1,718 1
proposed 5,304 2
* The square footage for these residential properties were documented from Assessor's information as
there was no information available in the building permit file in the Community Development Department.
D-28
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE12
Pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.040(A)(6), "Neighborhood Character" means the existing
characteristics in terms of the following (in bold type):
1. Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot
coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures.
As noted in Table 2 above, the immediate neighborhood is comprised of primarily
single-story residences, with a few two-story homes that were primarily built in recent
years. The homes in the area range in size from 1,634ft2 to 5,593ft2 and have an
average structure size of 2,631ft2 . Staff received two public comments (attached) from
the property owners located at 5319 Bayridge Road (Enders) and 5329 Bayridge Road
(Semelka) expressing concerns generally with the compatibility of the proposed project
with the character of the immediate neighborhood. In terms of structure size, the
proposed residence at 5,304ft2 will be substantially larger than the average structure
size in the area. Staff acknowledges that the proposed residence will not exceed the
size of the largest residence in the area located at 5303 Bayridge Road (5,593ft2 );
however it should be noted that this residence includes an 853ft2 basement and is sited
on 20,098ft2 lot which is significantly larger than most of the lots on Bayridge Road. The
proposed 5,304ft2 residence is entirely above grade on a 9,484ft2 lot. The second and
third largest new homes that have been constructed in the last 10 years, measure less
than of 5,000ft2 (4,324ft2 -5329 Bayridge Rd. and 4,750ft2 -5345 Bayridge Road) and
are located entirely above grade to the immediate west of the project site.
Based on the average structure size for the immediate neighborhood being 2,631ft2 , the
structure size of the more recently constructed homes within the immediate
neighborhood, and the size of the lot, Staff believes that the proposed structure size
should be reduced to stay in the range of the recently approved projects. Staff
recommends that the Commission direct the Applicant to reduce the total structure size
to approximately 4,500ft2 (including the garage) and that the majority of the reduction in
size occur from the upper floor to address mass and bulk concerns described below.
Although the proposed 46% lot coverage for the proposed residence is below the 52%
maximum allowed in the RS-5 zoning district, Staff believes that the structure size of the
residence can be further reduced to minimize the overall scale of the new two-story
residence. Therefore, as currently designed, Staff does not believe that the scale
(structure size) of the home is compatible with the immediate neighborhood.
11. Architectural styles, including fac;ade treatments, structure height, open
space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the
structure, number of stories, and building materials.
The residences within the immediate neighborhood vary in architectural style, borrowing
elements commonly found in Mediterranean/ Italian Renaissance and California Ranch
designs. The roof designs in the immediate area include Dutch gable and hip roofs that
use materials such as composition shingles and ceramic tile. The exterior finishes of the
D-29
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT -(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE13
neighboring properties vary, but generally includes stucco and wood siding. The
proposed residence incorporates a low-pitched hip roof with clay tile roofing, stucco
exterior finish, and balconies, which are common design features of other two-story
homes in the area (5329 and 5345 Bayridge Road). With regards to the open space
between structures, an aerial review of the closest 20 homes indicates that the amount
of open space between neighboring structures varies due to topographic conditions and
the layout of the homes in the area. As such, Staff believes that the proposed
architectural style, roof design, building materials and open space of the proposed
residence are compatible with the immediate neighborhood.
As indicated in Table 2 above, the immediate area includes 3 existing two-story homes.
City Staff received public comments (attached) from two neighboring property owners at
5319 Bayridge Road (Enders) and 5329 Bayridge Road (Semelka) expressing concerns
with the proposed structure height and the apparent bulk/mass. The two most recently
approved two-story residences at 5329 and 5345 Bayridge Road are located on the
same side of the street as the project site. City records indicate that the overall height of
these residences were approved by the Planning Commission at 22.12' (5329 Bayridge
Rd.) and 22.42' (5345 Bayridge Road). The overall height of the proposed residence will
be 24.6', which is over 2' taller than the most recently approved two-story residence in
the area. Based on the proximity of the project site to the existing two-story residences
in the area and the visual appearance of the project silhouette as observed from the
street, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct the Applicant to reduce
the overall height not to exceed 22.42', which is similar to the height of the most recently
approved two-story residences in the neighborhood.
As for the apparent bulk/mass, the proposed west fa9ade facing 5329 Bayridge Road
has been designed to provide adequate roof and fa9ade articulation. More specifically,
the second floor has been recessed from the first floor by 13' at the front of the
residence to 6' at the rear. While the west fa9ade is well articulated, Staff believes that
the east fa9ade facing 5319 Bayridge Road appears bulky and massive. More
specifically, the 4' recess of the second floor from the first floor at the front of the
residence and the absence of any articulation at the rear, creates a vertical massing
that looms over the neighboring property to the east and is not consistent with the
rhythm and character of the existing streetscape. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission direct the Applicant to increase the setback between the first and second
floors along the easterly facade to approximately 1 O' to reduce the apparent bulk and
mass as observed from the easterly property. Incorporating Staff's recommended
modifications would be consistent with the design of the residences at 5329 and 5345
Bayridge Road and bring the proposed project more in line with the character of the
immediate neighborhood.
iii. Front, side, and rear yard setbacks
The existing residence has a non-conforming front yard setback of 17.58', when the
Code currently requires a minimum of 20'. The existing residence will be demolished,
removing any nonconformities, and the proposed residence will comply with the
D-30
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE14
minimum required setbacks (see Table 1, Project Statistics). Setbacks amongst the 20
closest properties vary due to the topography and layout of the homes. Thus, the
project's proposed setbacks are consistent with the neighborhood.
While Staff finds that the proposed residence is compatible with regard to architectural
style, fac;:ade treatments, number of stories and setbacks; Staff believes that the
structure size, overall height of the residence, and the design of the east facade create
bulk and mass impacts. In order to address the neighborhood compatibility concerns
described above, Staff recommends that the following design modifications be
considered by the Planning Commission:
• Reduce the structure size (garage area included), particularly the second floor,
so as to not exceed 4,500ft2 .
• Reduce the overall building height to 22.42' as measured from the lowest
finished grade adjacent to the structure.
• Recess the second-story along the east fac;:ade for an overall setback of 1 O'
between the upper and lower floors.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider Staff's recommendations, as
well as the concerns raised by the public, and provide the Applicant and the Property
Owner with further direction.
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 RPVMC 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 balcony along the front fac;:ade will not result in an unreasonable
infringement of privacy of the occupants of abutting residences, as the balcony faces a
public street (Bayridge Road), where there is no expectation of privacy.
The project also proposes the construction of a new 438ft2 second-story deck at the
rear of the residence. Staff received comment letters (attached) from the abutting
neighbors at 5329 Bayridge Road (Semelka) to the west of the project site expressing
privacy concerns from the proposed deck, as observed from interior spaces of their
residence. As the Height Variation Guidelines place greater weight on protecting
outdoor privacy, Staff's privacy assessment focused on privacy impacts to outdoor
areas of the abutting east-and west-properties at 5319 and 5329 Bayridge Road. In
doing so, Staff determined that the proposed deck will create privacy impacts to their
rear yards. In order to address the privacy impact concerns, Staff recommends that the
following design modifications be considered by the Planning Commission:
D-31
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE15
• Reduce the size of the deck;
• Incorporate solid walls or translucent side panels to allow the transmission of
light, but not vision; and/or
The property owners at 5329 Bayridge Road (Semelka) also expressed privacy
concerns as a result of the west-facing windows on the proposed residence. The project
plans depict the location of three west-facing windows on the proposed second-story.
Staff is of the opinion that the windows will not create a privacy impact, as the windows
have limited interior accessibility due to their location over a stair case and in an area of
the second floor with no finished floor.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider Staff's recommendations and
provide the Applicant and the Property Owner with further direction regarding the
neighborhood compatibility and privacy concerns described above.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Pursuant to RPVMC §17.70.010, the Site Plan Review (SPR) procedure enables the
Planning Commission to check development proposals for conformity with the
provisions of the Municipal Code and for the manner in which they are applied, when no
other application is required. In addition to the construction of the proposed residence,
the Applicant is proposing yard improvements including a redesign of the existing
driveway in the front yard, the installation of mechanical equipment along the easterly
side yard, and hardscape improvements. The proposal to redesign the driveway has
received preliminary approval from the City's Public Works Department. The proposed
ancillary improvements comply with all applicable Code requirements, including, but not
limited to, minimum required setbacks, parking, and maximum allowed lot coverage as
evidenced in Table 1 (Project Statistics). Thus, the requested Site Plan Review can be
approved.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Notice
The March 21, 2019 public notice described the proposed project as the construction of
a new 5,332ft2 two-story residence. On March 26, 2019, the Applicant submitted revised
plans which recued the size of the proposed two-story residence to 5,304ft2 . Because
the structure size was reduced, a new public notice was not required to circulate.
Public Correspondence
In response to the public notice, Staff received public comments from neighboring
property owners at 5318, 5319, 5329 and 5348 Bayridge Road raising concerns with
view impairment, neighborhood compatibility, privacy impacts, and chimney safety.
Most of these concerns are addressed in Height Variation findings above. As for
D-32
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE16
chimney safety, the property owners at 5329 Bayridge Road (Semelka) expressed
health and safety concerns related to the proposed placement of a chimney along the
west facade facing their property, and the property owner at 5319 Bayridge (Enders)
expressed a concern with the number of chimneys. If the project is approved, the
construction and operation of the chimney would be required to comply with State
Building Code requirements and would be subject to permitting and inspections by the
City's Building and Safety Division to mitigate health and safety concerns. As for the
number of chimneys, the Applicant is proposing two, which Staff does not believe is
excessive for a residence under today's standards.
Permit Streamlining Act
The State Permit Streamlining Act sets time limits on processing development permit
applications. The maximum number of days allowed by State law for processing
categorically exempt project applications is 60-days. The project was deemed complete
on March 20, 2019, establishing a decision deadline of May 19, 2019. Continuance of
the item beyond May 14th will require the Applicant to granting a time extension by to a
90-days. Thus, creating a new action deadline in order to provide the Applicant
sufficient time to address any concerns or direction provided by the Planning
Commission for consideration at a future continued public hearing.
Environmental Assessment
Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section
15303(a) (Construction of Single-Family Residence) of the California Guidelines for
Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the project includes the demolition and
construction of one single family residence in a residential zone that is currently
developed with residential structures.
Foliage Analysis
On April 24, 2019, City Staff conducted a foliage analysis and found no foliage on the
project site that significantly impairs the view from a viewing area of an adjoining
property.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission 1)
review the proposed project design as it relates to Staff's recommended modifications to
address neighborhood compatibility concerns: 2) provide the Applicant with direction;
and, 3) continue the public hearing to June 25, 2019 provided that the Applicant agrees
to a 90-day time extension.
D-33
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT-(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
MAY 14, 2019
PAGE17
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the
Planning Commission's consideration:
1. Direct Staff to prepare a Resolution, to be brought back to the Planning
Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting, approving with conditions a
Height Variation and Site Plan Review application (Case No. ZON2016-00358).
2. Direct Staff to prepare a Resolution, to be brought back to the Planning
Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting, denying, without prejudice,
a Height Variation and Site Plan Review application (Case No. ZON2016-00358).
ATTACHMENTS
• Project Plans
• Public Comments
D-34
~-r: .. ;_;_:_:i-!!g NEW HOME l=======c::::c;;ccc;:;:;;c=======~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;;;~~~~~;~1:::::::~;; .~3'CXRLo ~ .. "
-.1°,C'I t:======:::!I~====~~~=?.=.:=i -:~~)[0~~-~j·
SITE PLAN
CD:•::J
:g,r::~.
D-35
t t17z £~[;'.12~!TION PLAN
I~
10 9" 0:::
r--
DP-1
D-36
D-37
D-38
A-104
D-39
ELEVATIONS
D-40
NORTH ELEVATION
ELEVATIONS
WEST ELEVATION
D-41
Planning Commision Proposed Plan for Comments/Concerns
Restrictions for 5325 Bayridge
5329 Bayridge
Overall Height 20 .25' 26.0' Highest priority of all concerns. Tremendous
concern over excess bulk/mass and privacy .
Bulk/mass concern primarily from the owners
of 5325 Bayridge drove 20.25' max. height
decision for 5329 Bayridge. Resulted in huge
added construction costs, degraded property
value/usability because of graded lot and
impaired view, truncated/flattened roof,
significant mechanical complexities, reduced
ceiling heights, reduced garage height, lack of
crawl space and attic access, etc. This is 2.35
times the previously approved height variation
and absolutely a non-starter. Request City
Planning make consistent decisions amongst
adjacent properties of identical size.
House Size (sq. ft.) 368l(living area) 5332 (living area) Tremendous concern over excess bulk/mass,
inconsistent with neighborhood . Sq footage of
5329 Bayridge was significantly reduced by
Planning Commission due to bulk/mass
concern, and limited size to 3681 sq ft. All
room sizes were forced to be significantly
smaller than planned, reduced usability,
dramatically reduced property value. The
proposed structure at 5325 Bayridge is 45%
larger on an identical sized lot. This is not
consistent , not acceptable .
Deck Size & Setback 302 sq ft total 507 sq ft total Tremendous concern over privacy, excess
170 sq ft rear (North 473 sq ft rear North bulk/mass. Proposed deck has severe privacy
facing) deck facing) deck issues with open view to our Master
Bedroom/Bathroom, Kitchen/Great/Dining
Rooms. Substantially increased potential for
large gatherings, parties, noise, disturbances
with a huge deck. Impact is much greater on
2nd floor looking down into our house and
yard. Planning commission dramatically cut
proposed size and setback of our deck in the
name of privacy, bulk & mass . We also initially
proposed a large, deep deck going to the end
of 2nd floor and were denied. Would have
loved to have a 15' x 31.5' deck, but were
dramatically cut to 6'10" x 13'10" -1/3 size of
proposed deck. 5325 North facing deck causes
privacy concerns looking directly back into our
Master Bedroom & Bathroom, kitchen and
Great & living Rooms . Request City Planning
D-42
make consistent decisions amongst adjacent
properties, especially of identical size . Need
clarification of N extent of proposed deck to
determine full impact .
2nd Floor Excess 9 ft 6.5 ft Privacy , bulk/ma ss and p ri va cy concerns . Ou r
Setback 2"d fl oor setba ck wa s increa sed an additional
9' in bac k beyond the mandatory 5' setback
due to pri v acy , bulk /mas s interpretation by
Planning Commission. 5325 is set back only 6-
1/2'. This gives us the same concerns for
privacy , bulk/mass . Fireplace vent on W side is
8.5 ft below roof line and poses a health and
safety hazard for rooms on the E side including
our Mstr Bdrm. Toxic fumes can be swept into
our living area. We were forced to use direct
vent FP with horiz runs to get chimney to roof
peak height. Existing FP vent is unsafe and
must be changed .
Privacy from Deck Full visual block No restriction Proposed deck has severe privacy issues with
" open view to our Master Bedroom/Bathroom,
Kitchen/Great/Dining/Living Rooms. On our
rear deck, we were forced to install 6ft panels
of opaque glass in addition to severely
reducing size and setback from property lines
due to privacy concerns. We have the same
privacy concerns and require similar
mitigation. Request that City Planning make
consistent decisions amongst adjacent
properties, especially of identical size.
D-43
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Olivier Enders
Octavio Si lva
5325 Bayridge
Thursday , April 04 , 2019 10:00:47 AM
Neighbor at 5319 Bayridge
Next door to Proposed Height Variation at 5325
Dear Mr. Silva,
We are on the downhill side of the height variation request. That means it is biggest
on our side from our perspective. But it is also really bad for many other homes
looking down from Birchfield since this home is directly at the end of Birchfield, where
the ocean and city views are at. The Planning Commission recently took part with 3
other new homes directly next to 5325 with two being single story and one being a
reduced height two story directly next to the Height Variation request , that underwent
a lot of community input. As neighbors we are generally pleased the planning
commission handled this well. But the big box being proposed at 5325 is in a whole
different class of bulk . 5200 sq ft w/ garage on a small lot on a very visible location
at the end of Birchfield. I looked at the plans with you and saw 5 bedrooms, a master
bath, master closet, and laundry room big enough to be two more bedrooms . The
equivalent of 7 bedrooms, with 6 on the second floor, also include very large living
room, dining room , and family rooms on the first floor .
The bulk on the second floor really needs to be reduced , allowing maybe a little bit of
city view visibility for the folks on Birchfield , and please find a way to lower the overall
height as you did on the new house next door to it. From our perspective, we will
have this giant structure and second floor windows looking down on us . It would
certainly be nice if those could be made non-see through . And why do they need
those two very large fire place chimneys? You would think one fire place would
certainly be enough blocking the view with its chimney instead of those two at the
end of Birchfield . We intend to be at the meeting so thank you for the notification.
Regards
Olivier Enders
5319 Bayridge Rd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
D-44
Re case no. ZON2016--00358
looking thru side window. As you can see this structure will take away completely our Ocean
So we oppose the height of this construction.
5310 Bd':urit~;rU
kaiw.:nm I-~ ~itie:S
CA 90275
D-45
D-46
From:
To:
Subject:
Frank & Sue Seme lka
Octav io Sil va ; Ara Mihrani an
Re: 5325 Bayridge Rd.
Date: Sunday, April 28, 2019 8:36:05 AM
Hello Ara, Octavio,
I have not received a response to the email below and wanted to make sure you had received
it. Since the hearing date for 5325 Bayridge is approaching, it is important that Building &
Safety , as well as the Planning Commission are considering all the facts in this case. Please
confirm receipt of this email.
Sincerely ,
Frank Semelka
On Mar 31 , 2019, at 6:4 7 PM , Frank & Sue Semelka <frankensue2 @ gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Ara,
Since you were short on time at the Friday March 29 meeting, I didn 't get a
chance to convey the additional height restriction imposed on our project by RPV
B&S after approval. After our project was started and existing structure
demolished, So Kim claimed there was an error in the approval statement of 0.7
feet. She "confused" the highest existing grade with the survey street reference
and as a result our project was graded down too low and effectively cut 0.7 feet
off of our approved 4.25 ft height variance! She and B&S fervently enforced a
max height variance of 3.55 ft. relative to existing grade , because of the RPV
B&S error.
This is key because every window/door/bi-fold door on the back of the house had
to be custom sized due to the extreme height limit. We begged for a few inches
to minimize the impact and were denied . We have over a quarter million dollars
in cost attributable to that alone. Every single rafter on the back of the house had
to be notched to lower the roof height a few inches. It also exacerbates height
differentials between adjacent properties. All this because of a fervent
unsubstantiated zeal by RPV B&S to enforce a subjective standard of minimizing
"Bulk and Mass". At least that was the stated rationale . Despite substantial
lengthy and costly effo11s by our attorney , architect, and myself, we could not get
B&S to budge. (see email ref below)
No laws or statutes relative to Bulk and Mass have changed since our project was
approved, nor have their been any related voter approved initiatives since our
project timeframe, so consideration of the proposed project on the immediately
adjacent, identically sized lot, must be treated identically -especially from a
height variation approval standpoint. Thank you in advance for your
consideration.
D-47
Sincerely ,
Frank Semelka
From: So Kim [mailto:SoK@rpv.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 2:52 PM
To: Louie Tomaro
Subject: RE: Semelka
Hi Louie ,
Condition No . 17 of the approved City Council Resolution says:
The maximum overall height shall not exceed 22 .92', as measured from
the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the finished grade ,
to the existing ridgel ine of the structure; and....20 .25', as measured from
the highest existing grade from the ridgel ine . 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.
Looking at the approved plans , the lowest po int is 97.33' with a ridgeline
of 120.25'. This calculates out to 22 .92' in overall height. You are
correct in that the second part shown in red should say 19 . 55', as
measured from the highest existing grade to the ridgeline s ince the
highest existing grade is 100.7, not 100.0.
However , the key word is 'and' shown on the condit ion of approval. As
such , although the second part of the sentence may have had a typo , the
project was approved as a 22 .92' max structure , measured from 97.33 '
lowest post-construction grade.
If the property owners would like to increase the approved height, we
will have to go back to the City Council for a decision.
Sincerely,
(Jr .. )(;/~/
Assistant Planner
<image002 .jpg>City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5228 I sok@rpv com
http ://www palosyerdes com/rpy/
On Mar 25 , 2019 , at I :35 PM , Octavio Silva <OctavioS@ rpvca.gov>
wrote:
D-48
Hi Frank & Susan,
Ara and I are planning on visiting the project site at 5325 Bayridge Rd. this
Friday, March 29th _ Do you have some time to meet us on your property
to further discuss your concerns? If so, please le t me know what range of
time works best for you.
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www .rpvca .gov
octavios@rpvca .gov
(310) 544-5234
From: Frank & Sue Semelka [mailto:frankensue2@gma il.com ]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 12:14 PM
To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@ rp v ca .gov>
Subject: Re : 5325 Bayridge Rd.
Thanks Octavio. After we talked to the architect we weren 't sure if
any changes had been proposed. It looks like maybe they reduced the
height I I inches .
Ben sounded like he was reluctant to do much up front. He said he
knew how the game was played and wasn 't going in with nothing left
to give up . It will be interesting to see how this project plays out. We
originally asked for 25.17' and the staff put in the report that "~
though the applicant has incorporated numerous design elements to
create a smaller avvearing structure stqfjcontinues to feel that th e
resulting vrqject is massive and out ofscale as viewed.from motorists
traveling east on Bayridge Road and south on Birchfield Ave .
Specifically. since the prQ}ect site is located at the end ofa "T "
intersection it is highly visible from motorist traveling on Bayridge
Road and Birchfield Ave Stqjffeels that the overall height o/25.1 7 '
is too overwhelming as seenfrom the public right-of-way and results
in a massive appearing structure." As you know, we then
proposed to grade down to have 20 ' Max. height and 3671 sf
residence with a 653sf tandem garage. That even was denied by
planning staff and Commission and had to be appealed to City
Counsel.
Anyway , I know you know all of that. I can only hope the city will
D-49
sta y consistent with th e ir findin gs and be fair , even though there is a
different team representing the c it y now . I do know too well the
arg um e nt of lookin g at eac h prop ert y individually , but how ca n th e
findin gs for two prop erti es that are ri ght nex t to each other, be in g the
sa me s ize lot , th e same publi c right of way ex posure, th e same
s urroundin g mo stl y s in g le story ho mes , etc., etc ., be look ed at
differently?
Thank yo u for yo ur consideration. I do very much appreciate it.
Kind rega rd s,
Susa n
On Mar 13, 2019 , at 11 :27 AM, Octavio S ilva
<Octav ioS@rp vca.gov> wro te:
Hi Susan,
The proposed structure size is 5,332 sq. ft. and consists of
the fo ll owing:
1 .) 2,582 sq. ft. 15t floor
2 .) 2,105 sq. ft. 2nd floor
3.) 645 sq. ft. three car garage
The structure size does not include the deck areas, which
total 507 sq. ft.
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca .gov
(310) 544-5234
From : Frank & Sue Semelka
[mailto:frankensue2@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 11:22 A M
To: Octavio Si lva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
D-50
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: 5325 Bayridge Rd.
Thank you Octavio. What is the overall size of the
home? Can you please give me a breakdown? Thank
you.
Susan
On Mar 13, 2019, at I I :07 AM, Octavio
Silva <O c t av ioS@ rp vca.gov> wrote:
Hi Susan,
The project proposes a maximum height of
25 .1'. The size of the 2nd story deck at the rear
of the residence will be 437 sq. ft. in area.
Please let me know if you have any further
questions.
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www .rpvca .gov
octavios@ rpvca .gov
(310) 544-5234
From: Frank & Sue Semelka
[mailto:frankensue2@gmail .com ]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 10:56 AM
To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>
Subject: 5325 Bayridge Rd.
Good Morning Octavio,
Are the proposed plans for 5325 Bayridge
Rd . still asking for 26 ' height? It is really
hard to tell from the ribbons.
Can you please confirm the proposed Max.
height, as wel I as the proposed size of the
2nd story North facing deck and total square
footage?
D-51
I am planning on sending photos of the flags
from inside our house showing my privacy
concerns from the North facing 2nd story
deck. As I expressed earlier, there will be a
direct view into my kitchen window and
great room, as well into our rear yard. It is
hard to see the impact with the small ribbons
used which is why those were chosen.
I also have a safety concern with the height
of the fireplace on the west side. It looks like
it will vent close to our windows.
Thanks,
Susan
D-52
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Fra n k & Sue Seme lka
Octavio Si lva
Ara Mihranian
5325 Bayridge Rd. CASE NO. ZON2016 -00358
Monday, May 06, 2019 6:41:58 AM
To the Planning Commission of RPV:
Hello,
May 5 , 2019
This email is in response to the proposed project at 5325 Bayridge Rd. My name is
Frank Semelka and I am the next door neighbor to the west of this property. I am
not opposed to building a new home , but I do have significant concerns with the
plans as proposed.
Concerns:
(1) BULK AND MASS:
HEIGHT: The proposed 24.55 ' height would be higher than any of the homes
within the neighborhood defined 20 closest homes, with the exception of 5303
Bayridge Rd., located at the end of the cul-de-sac , on more than double the lot size ,
and previously excluded from consideration for our height variation. More
importantly , we recently completed construction of a new home , on the
immediately adjacent , identical size lot, and were forced by the RPV Planning
Commission to limit our project to 19.55' through structure height reduction and lot
grading.
The city determined that our proposed 367lsfhome with a 25 ' height was .... "
massive and out of scale as viewed by motorists traveling east on Bay ridge and
south on Birchfield. Specifically since the project site is located at the end of a ' T
'intersection. The city feels that the overall height of 25.17' is too overwhelming
as seen from the public right of way." Quoted from staff report.
It would be egregious ly inconsistent and unconscionable to now allow the proposed
D-53
height variance , 240°/o larger than approved for our project, right next door at the
very same intersection. The elevated floor heights would become a privacy issue ,
looking down into our bedroom , bathrooms , and kitchen. I am even more
concerned, that if maximum height and grading consistency are not followed, the
property on the other side of us will tower over our property when they build a 2 nd
story. After grading , that lot is now 6 ' higher than ours.
For our project, staff also found concern for "cumulative view impairment" stating
"original proposal of 25 ·caused significant view impairment of the city lights fi'om
the primary viewing area ... if 5345 Bayridge were to propose a similar structure at
the same height". This was rationale for reducing our height to 20.25', which was
further reduced to 19 .55 '. Again, it would be egregiously inconsistent to approve a
height variation above limitations already imposed on an identical adjacent
property.
I am also concerned that the proposed 2 nd floor setback is only 6-1/2' relative to the
1st floor , whereas for our project, we were forced to setback the 2nd floor 9 ' beyond
the 1st floor. This further adds to our Privacy and Bulk and Mass concerns, and is
inconsistent with previous Planning Commission findings.
Living Area: The proposed size of 4681 sf is much larger than neighboring homes -
again excluding 5303 Bayridge which is on a lot size of 20,260. Again, our project
living area was cut to 3671 sq ft due to Bulk and Mass concerns before finally being
approved on appeal by the City Council. It would be inconsistent to approve a
structure 28% larger, after denying our smaller proposal 3 times , on an immediately
adjacent, identical size lot, on the basis of Bulk and Mass.
(2) INVASION OF PRIVACY: The expansive 437 sq ft North facing 2nd story
deck is of great concern to us. It will be a frequent potential for large noisy
gatherings, creating a constant source of discomfort and stress, interfering with the
enjoyment of our yard and our home.
By comparison, after much struggle , we were finally approved for a 170 sq ft North
facing deck. We wanted a larger deck as well , but were denied , by the RPV
Planning Commission, based on privacy concerns. We were forced to cut back the
D-54
rear deck area to the point where it doesn 't even shelter the bifold door environment
it was intended to protect. Further, to get past Privacy concerns , we were forced to
install hug e 6 ' tall opaque panels to prevent any possibility of any view into
adjacent neighbor 's yards from the deck. We were told "panels any lower would
still allow infringement of privacy ". Indeed , the RPV Planning Commission
included the following in their final recommendation to the City Council for denial
of our project ---"staff recommended and the appellant agreed to the use of fixed,
opaque windows and inclusion of opaque panels to the sides of the proposed rear
balcony. As a result of these changes, staff and the Planning Commission agreed
that the privacy impact had been eliminated. However, as part of this appeal, the
appellant is requesting the removal of the opaque panels on the balcony. If this
specific request is granted, staff believes that the privacy impact concern will
become an issue again . " The proposed deck at 5325 also includes a very large
cover which significantly increases the structure Bulk and Mass appearanc e, as well
as restricting/blocking our view eastward. We ask that the cover feature be
e liminated.
I also have Privacy concerns from th e proposed West facing windows on either side
of the fireplace , which will look right into my kitchen window. I have similar
concerns regarding the proposed window in the stairway, which will have direct
view into one of our bedrooms. Those windows , if retained, should have to be
opaqued , just as we were forced , by the Planning Commission, to opaque our
Master Bedroom windows , for the same reasons . Planting trees or shrubs as
proposed by the architect , does not mitigate this concern. Plants can be taken out ,
moved , or later die. Also, we have direct experience, with this very property , a
multi-decade absolute nightmare , due to negligent overgrowth and rodent
infestation, as well as a fraudulent lawsuit for trimming overgrowth from our
property .
(3) HEAL TH and SAFETY: The proposed fireplace on the West side is much
lower in height than the East side fireplace and extremely close to the property line.
At its proposed height , it will vent right into our master suite windows . It needs to
be vented at a different location or eliminated entirely. Toxic fumes , including
carbon monoxide , even from a natural gas fireplace , will be swept into our master
suite if this feature is permitted . Solutions, such as a direct vent with horizontal runs
are available , or move the vent so it does not pose the health and safety hazard of
the proposed design .
In summary, the proposed overall size and especially the height present a
D-55
substantial bulk and mass concern and are inconsistent with recent projects,
including ours. I am not opposed to a new home or to a 2nd story, but the city must
stay consistent with their recent rulings of bulk and mass in our neighborhood. The
2nd story setback needs to be consistent. The North facing deck must be
substantially reduced in size, so it is consistent with the size of adjacent
approvals/limitations and there absolutely must be 6' minimum height opaque
barriers installed on all West and East facing excursions to preserve the privacy of
the adjacent neighbors. For safety, the west fireplace must either be eliminated or
the vent moved significantly away from our windows.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Frank Semelka
D-56
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Frank & Sue Semelka
Octavio Silva
Ara Mihranian
5325 Bayridge Rd. Case #ZON2016-00358
Monday, May 06, 2019 8:10:50 AM
To the Planning Commission of RPV:
Hello,
I am writing this email in response to the proposed project at 5325 Bayridge Rd. My name is
Susan Semelka and I am the next door neighbor to the west of this property . I am not opposed
to building a new home but I do have concerns with the plans as proposed.
Concerns:
(I) INVASION OF PRIVACY from the expansive north facing 2nd story balcony which
would create a constant source of discomfort and stress, interfering with the enjoyment of our
yard and home.
This balcony will allow direct views down into my back yard where we spend a good
amount of time since this is where our view is. It will also allow a direct view down into my
kitchen and great room. Anyone standing on that deck would have a direct view into my
Master Suite. We have a very small deck off of our master bedroom (we were restricted to
170sf to mitigate privacy infringement on adjacent properties) and to protect the privacy of
our neighbors to both the east and west we had to use 6' opaque glass panels to block any
possibility of a side view into our neighbors yards or windows. Panels any shorter would still
allow infringement of privacy.
I also have a privacy concern from the west facing windows on either side of the fireplace
which will look right into my kitchen window and the window in the stairway will have direct
view into one of our bedrooms. If those windows were opaque and fixed that would still allow
light and would mitigate privacy infringement. Planting trees or shrubs to mitigate this
concern as the architect proposed is not a solution . Trees and shrubs can be taken out later or
die. They also create an absolute nightmare if not trimmed and maintained. We have that
problem now -specifically with this property, as well as the property below them.
(2) BULK AND MASS.
HEIGHT: The proposed 25 ' height would be higher than any of the surrounding homes
with the exception of 5303 Bayridge Rd. 5303 Bayridge Rd. is located at the end of the cul-
de-sac and on one of the lowest graded lots (as well as the largest lots) in the neighborhood , as
the lots on Bayridge and Birchfield step down by 3 to 5' as the road comes down ending at
the cul-de-sac. As a result 5303 does not have the impact as the homes further up the street do.
When we were building, we were told we could not use that home as a comparison since it
was on a lot twice the size of ours and at the end of the cul-de-sac. When we built our home
we were limited to 20 ' and had to grade our lot down by 3 .5' to help mitigate bulk and mass as
did the project 2 houses to the west of us -5345 Bayridge Rd . The city determined a 4606sf
home with a 25' height (that we were proposing) was .... "massive and out of scale as
viewed by motorist traveling east on Bayridge and south on Birchfield. Specifically since the
project site is located at the end of a ' T 'intersection. The city feels that the overall hight of
25.17' is too overwhelming as seen from the P1J}11k dg.h1 QfWJJJ!_." Quoted from staff report.
D-57
Precedence was set with limiting the height of our home and the home 2 doors to the west of
us at 5345 Bayridge Rd. to 20' from highest grade. Another concern with allowing 25' height
for 5325 is when the property to our east decides to build a 2nd story and is allowed the same
25' height, they will tower over us, especially since their lot is already 6' higher than ours
now. The city also felt that our original proposal of 25' height caused ''sign(ficant cumulative
view impairment" of city lights and the San Gabriel Mountains to homes on Birchfield Ave.
Another quote from Staff repoti.
OVERALL SIZE: The proposed size of 5332 sf is quite a bit larger than the surrounding
homes -again with the exception of 5303 Bayridge. The lot size of 5303 Bayridge is more
than double -20,260sf-that of the lot size of 5325 and being located at the end of the cul-de-
sac, is more obscure and does not have the impact that 5325 would. The home being built on
26234 Birchfield is large - I don't know the exact size -but the lower story is below ground so
doesn't present a massive appearance. I feel 5332sf is too large and would appear massive.
The two other homes within the 20 closest homes that have been built since ours -5345 and
5357 Bayridge are both on larger lots - I 0,920sf and 15, 111 sf respectively, and are smaller
homes than the proposed project at 5325 Bayridge Rd.
(3) My 3rd concern is a SAFETY concern. The proposed fireplace on the west side is a lower
height than the east fireplace. At its current proposed height it will vent right next to our
bedroom windows. It needs to be either set back further from the property line or taller so it
doesn't vent next to our windows.
In summary, I feel the proposed height and overall size present a BULK AND MASS
concern. I am not at all opposed to a new home or to a 2nd story. The city needs to stay
consistent with their ruling of bulk and mass in our neighborhood and limit the height to 20'
from the highest grade as they did with both our house and the 2 story home 2 doors to our
west. I would like to see the overall size of the structure be reduced and the 2nd story setback
be increased to alleviate the appearance of bulk and mass. Substantially reducing the size of
the North facing balcony and removing its cover would also help alleviate the appearance of
Bulk and Mass.
To mitigate the UNREASONABLE INFRINGEMENT OF PRIVACY to the occupants
of abutting properties, the north facing 2nd story balcony needs to either be eliminated or
reduced in size b)'.. a lot, and opaque walls or panels at least 6' high be constructed on the east
and west sides to preserve the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. To mitigate the safety hazard
of the fireplace on the west side venting carbon monoxide near my windows, the fireplace
needs to either be eliminated, moved further away from our windows, or be increased in
height to allow venting further from our windows.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Susan Semelka
D-58
From:
To:
johntbradley@yahoo .com
Octavio Silva
Subject: Fw: Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case NO ZON2016-00358)
Tuesday, May 07, 2019 1:01:04 PM Date:
Hi Octavio,
Please see the email below I sent earlier today -apparently to the wrong email.
Thanks
John
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On T uesday, May 7, 20 19, 9:42 AM, John Bradley <johntbrad ley @ yah oo.com> wrote:
Hi Octavio,
To follow-up after your visit to our home a few weeks ago, I wanted to
formally write in objection to the height variation case mentioned above
for 5325 Bayridge Road .
Our objection is founded on two reasons:
(1) -The enjoyable and valuable city view from our home will be
essentially reduced to zero.
(2) -This would be the third construction plan authorized on our street in
the last several years that allowed for height variances and removed
enjoyable and valuable city view from our residence.
To further explain and illustrate our reasoning I submit this additional
information for your review and consideration
Point (1)
The daytime and nighttime views afforded us currently over the property of
5325 Bayridge Road are the only sweeping view we have of the city. We
enjoy this view from our living room, 2 bedrooms, and our porch as you
enter and leave the house. Very often our guests comment when leaving
our house how nice the view is with the many twinkling city lights.
Attached are pictures of those night lights :
pie 3 -from front window, porch, and bedroom
D-59
pie 4 -from master bedroom
There are other views from our house that do provide for sliver-width
views of the city, but they a minuscule compared to this little view we
have over 5325 Bayridge Road and these minuscule views are not taken
in by the normal use of our home -the walking area and the way we
operate within the walls of our home. The views over 5325 naturally
come into play and are enjoyed by our normal course of using our home.
Point (2)
Two previous construction projects, with height variances allowed, have
taken away the other valuable portions of our city view -these projects
were at 5329 Bayridge Road and 5345 Bayridge Road.
Piece by piece our view has been taken away from our home and
therefore the value of our home has been undermined each time. If all
three of these projects and height variances were proposed at the same
time, there is no way the city or neighbors would have allowed for these
height variances, considering the cumulative effect of lost views to the
surrounding homes.
Octavio, we are not opposed to new construction in fact we welcome it
and the benefits it brings our community. However we do oppose the
infringement upon our enjoyment, and the investment value, of our
home. Those of us unable to afford the view side of our street should still
be provided the views we invested in and protected from having those
views taken away.
We look forward to discussing this in more detail with you and the
commission and welcome the opportunity for them to visit our home and
see for themselves how our view has been slowly erroded and will
eventually be removed with this proposed project.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
With much respect,
John and Kim Bradley
5348 Bayridge Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-707-5803
John T. Bradley
joh ntbrad ley@ya hoo. com
D-60
310-707-5803
D-61
D-62
D-63
CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Project Manager:
CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN"'
JUNE 25, 2019
HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO.
ZON2017-00245); PROJECT ADDRESS-5325 BAYRIDGE ROAD
(LANDOWNER/ APPLICANT -BEN CAUTHEN, PACIFIC DESIGN
GROUP)
Octavio Silva, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Continue the public hearing to July 9, 2019.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
On August 9, 2016, the Applicant submitted Height Variation and Site Plan Review
applications to demolish an existing single-story residence to accommodate the
construction of a new two-story residence with ancillary site improvements.
On May 14, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which
time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
After considering public testimony and concerns raised by Staff, the Planning
Commission continued the public hearing to June 25, 2019 to allow the Applicant an
opportunity to address concerns related to Neighborhood Compatibility including
structure size, bulk and mass, building height and privacy.
Since the May 14th Planning Commission meeting, Staff has been working with the
Applicant to address the concerns raised at the meeting based on the Commission's
direction. On June 1 Qth, the Applicant submitted revised plans and on June 17th the
Applicant informed Staff that the project silhouette was modified to reflect the revised
plans . As the modified silhouette was installed 3-days prior to the transmittal of the June
25th agenda packet, Staff does not believe that adequate time was provided to the
interested parties to assess the changes and provide comments. Therefore, Staff is
D-64
recommending that the public hearing be continued to July 9th meeting .
Action Deadline
Staff deemed the application complete for processing on March 20, 2019, setting the
action deadline to May 19, 2019 in accordance with the Permit Streamlining Act. At the
May 14th Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant granted a 90-day extension to the
action deadline, setting the new action deadline to August 17, 2019. The proposed
continued public hearing date of July 9th would be within the August 17th action deadline.
D-65
REVISED PLANSD-66
D
--
c
--
B
--
A
•
2'-6" 8'-o· •
..,. 6'.>. ~~'ff~~
s·-o· •
_______ __, .-
'b
I
"' 'f+~~~ ~
....;..__:.-6;?c!'f"'~'i~:::: = = = = = = = = = =-~:::=~~5··c::::::L.:: _____ ... ~ ..
• "' I
...
~ .. -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-:., I I
I I I
"!::: I I
I J
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I -
'\)./ r-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
it:hr----------., ~----------------\----_g
2' -6" 12'-4" "-• •
18'-6" D
1 i:-........ ' •
T FF. EL. 675.50
D
••
15'-9"
--•• ••
s·-o· II
76'-6"
I
f---_J
••
I
I D.W. I
I
17'-2"
0
16'-o"
1 .L ~ r-~ r---,,..-------------..
I ,_.J I
- -
I T FF. El" 675.50 I
L_____ \ 1 __ _J -
21'-8"
~=========='::i~ II~
I I u k-----d k-----d k-----d
• KITCHEN Fr. EL 675.50
-----------
REF.
i------------
1
I
I
I
I
PANTRY
••
I
L_l
-
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
µO
n r:
1:1111
J l,
' I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
-
• 20'-4"
I
I Lb/~----------,
I
~=±=-=;==--~--.::=~=::::=======-=-========:::;:=_.,.-::;;:Jo~±-=-:=~~ I ,_ ~ I ,_______~
21'-o" I
I
I I ~ ~
"
• "' I
lri
\L>-
(1
[
ARA RA
+DINING ROQM
FF. EL. 675.50
lri D \--::;::: ---===od::-----..:J v------I;
---1 ,_____. __ __._ ______ --+! ........ ___ ___,
i.....ilr------~1-..... _-~
I L _________ _
• VERANDAH
FF. EL. 675.83
'b
I
"' -
' ~-e----1
I I
-I
I I ...... _~! ____________ __
'
14'-4"
I
I I
trUVING ROOM
~~-.
'b
I
in -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I ....
_J-~µ
.3" --
-
UP
,,
--- - T ---=-------..... i-----.-----'
--~,;:crr.::::---rTll:11---t---1 ~ !
[--'
I
I'
'
I i~ ,u
I
' I, I
-
':o
I
"'
----+------...... -------+----------~.-
• BEDROOM
FF. EL. 675.50
======"i'· ,., -Lr::;:;:-=-:=-:::::-::.1.-:-:::;~-~·"'ll'l-fil'll'"""""rT"'"-------,
• _1±;;::;::;:1_ --------'1::-'-:--j:"~---~-;;;;" __ / '=" Q) ~"'"" \_ 1'-,,_,
~·.,._ __ ~ ..........,._ _ _ ~ ~ :.-""" "Do g g:::::r,._ ___ 1-:=1~::'...:11~~-+-+------Jt-
--.i..--...i.-+----------------~.----.J---1--t.::::Jl!iii;;~~,.c::;-i ~-----h~~=J;11;;);iiiiiC::~=====-~==ll!ii;;;;~11C::=~-====~U.::~~11::::::::::::::=~::J11i;;;!;iill[:::::::::::::::::::bliiii;;;;;:;;_JC11~-------+----------~.~-......... ----__,
1
1'-10· 21-5"
8'-9"
56'-o"
76'-6"
GENERAL NOTES
1. GARAGE TO INCLUDE AUTOMATIC DOOR OPENER PER CITY ORDINANCE.
2. PROVIDE DRIP PANS OR OTHER DEVICES FOR DISH WASHERS.
3. FOR SMOKE DETECTOR LOCATIONS SEE E-101 AND E-102 FOR SMOKE DETECTORS
4. DUCTS PENITRATING THE WALLS OR CEILINGS SEPARATING THE DWELLING FROM THE GARAGE SHALL BE CONSTRUClED OF A MINIMUhl NO 26
GAGE (0.48 MIN.) SHEET SlEEL OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL (R302.5.2).
5. USE APPROVED DECAY-RESISTANT OR PRESERVATIVE-TREATED LUMBER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R317.1 WHERE ALL WOOD FRAMING
MEMBERS THAT REST ON CONCRETE OR MASONRY EXlERIOR FOUNDATION WALLS AND ARE LESS THAN B" FROM EXPOSED GROUND.
6. SHOWERS AND SHOWER-lUBS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH INDIVIDUAL CONTROL VALVES OF THE PRESSURE BALANCE, THERMOSTATIC, OR
COMBINATION PRESSURE BALANCE/THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE THAT PROVIDE SCALD AND THERMAL SHOCK PROlECTION. (418 CPC)
7. PROVIDE TWO LAYERS OF GRADE D PAPER OR TYVEC WRAP BETWEEN PLYWOOD SHEAR PANEL AND EXTERIOR LATH. (R703.1)
8. INSTALLATION OF APPROVED ENERGY EFFICIENT SHOWER HEADS, FACETS AND WATER HEATERS AREA REQUIRED.
9. POST INSULATION COMPLIANCE CARD IN CONSPICUOUS LOCATION IN D~WNG PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.
10. LIGHTING IN BATHROOMS, GARAGES, LAUNDRY AND UTILITY ROOMS MUST BE HIGH EFFICACY LIGHTING OR HAVE VACANCY SENSORS.
11. CONTINUOS WHOLE-BUILDING VENTILATION RATE IS REQUIRED TO BE 1 CFM FOR EACH 100 SQUARE FEET OF CONDITIONED FLOOR AAEA (CFA)
PLUS 7.5 CFM FOR EACH OCCUPANT. VENTILATION RAlE (CFM)•
~ + 7.5 X (NUMBER OF BEDROOMS + 1) .,
'
' I
2
CID"-" 1 Cl ("\("\D DI /\ f\I
Z-•11\j----t-SCALE: 1/4"-1 '-0"
D
WASHER
DRYER -VENT EXHAUST TO
OUTSIDE
WAlER HEAlER @~'~--+--PROVIDE 18" HI. PLATIFORM
AND STRAP WATER HEATER
TO WALL W/ APROVED STRAP
IF.A.u.1 JANITROL GMP 075 3
OR APPROVED EQUAL:
• CAPACITY= 7500 BTU EACH ~----'<~,-+--PROVIDE 18" HI. PLATIFORM
'
'
3
LEGEND
SMOKE DElECTOR(HARD WIRED W/BA TT. BACKUP)
(REFER TO SHEET NOlE #78)
WAlER CLOSET -USIE LOW FLOW TYPE ( 1.6
GALLONS PER FLUSH)
LAVORATORY WITIH WOOD CABINET
TUB -GLASS ENCLOSURES
TO BE lEMPERED GLASS
SHOWER -GLASS ENCLOSURE
TO BE TEMPERED GLASS
SPA TUB -GLASS ENCLOSURE
TO BE lEMPERED GLASS
TRIPLE SINK -W/ GARBAGE
DISPOSAL
GAS RANGE
4
1. KITCHEN SINK W/ GARBAGE DISPOSER
2. RANGE OR COOKTOP (VERIFY). PROVIDE VENT
HODD ABOVE OR DOl\tlllRAFT 11£NT (VERIY).
J. REFRIGERATOR
4 FREEZER
5. REF./ FREEZER
6. DBL OVEN. -VERIFY GAS OR ELEC. & VENT REQUIREMENT
7. MICROWAVE OVIEN
8. DISHWASHER
9. TRASH COMPACTOR
10. HOOD ABOVE-VENT TO OUTSIDE
11. BASE CABINET -(VERIFY HEIGHT) WITH COUNlERTOP (VERIFY FINSH)
12. WALL MOUNTED CABINET-VERIFY HEIGHT & CLEARANCE ABV. LOWER CABINET.
1 J. MILLWORK-VERIFY DESIGN WITH OWNER
14. SHELVES-VERIFY
15. NICHE-VERIFY SIZE
16. WET BAR WITH UNDERCOUNTER REF. MAX. 10 SQ. FT. OF COUNlER AREA, NO HOT WAlER,
GARBAGE DISPOSAL., 220 v. ELECTRICAL OR GAS OUllET.
17. BALCONY/ DECK, FINISHED WITH MER-KO LARR#23811 OR EQUAL SLOPE Y4 PER FOOT MIN.
18. MIRROR-VERIFY SIZE
19. SINK.
20. PROVIDE EXHAUST FAN CAPABLE OR 5-AIR CHANGES PER. HR. (MIN)
21. TOILET.-30" CLR. WIDE SPACE REQUIRED. (1.6 GALLONS PER. FLUSH)
22. BIDET.-30" CLR. WIDE SPACE REQUIRED.
23. BATHlUB-PROVIDE lEMP. GLASS ENCLOSURE UNLESS A SEPARAlE SHOWER IS PROVIDED IN
THE SAME BATHROOM.
24. JACUZZIE BATHlUB-VERIFY SIZE & HEIGHT,
25. SHOWER-THE WALL COVERING SHALL BE CEMENT PLASTER, TILE OR APPROVED EQUAL, 70"
ABOVE DRAIN AT HE SHOWERS OR lUBS WITH SHOWERS. MATERIALS OTHER THAN STRUClURAL
ELEMENTS SHALL BE MOISlURE RESISTANT.MINIMUM INSIDE DIM. 24"x30" CLEARANCE-ENCLOSURE TO
BE lEMPERED GLASS CA lEGORY II. SWING THE DOOR OUTWARD. NET AREA OF SHOWER RECEPTOR
SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 1024 SQ. IN. OF FLOOR AREA, AND ENCOMPASS 30 INCH DIAMElER
CIRCLE.
26. RECESSED MEDIONE CABINET-VERIFY HEIGHT & SIZE.
27. POLE & SHELF OR CUSTOM CLOSET DESIGN BY OTHERS. REFER TO OWNER
28. STAIRCASE HANDRAIL -34" TO 38" ABOVE TREAD NOSING.
29. DECORATIVE GUARDRAIL-MININUM 42" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR OR NOSING LINE. GUARDRAIL DESIGN
SHALL NOT ALLOW A 4" • SPHERE TO PASS THROUGH. SEE STRUClURAL DRAWINGS FOR
ATTACHMENT DETAILS. REQUIRED GUARDS ON THE OPEN SIDE OF STAIRS SHALL HAVE A HEIGHT OF
NOT LESS THAN 34" FROM A LINE CONNECTING THE LEADING EDGE OF THE TREADS. (R312.2).
JO. STAIRCASE: WITH OCCUPANCY LOAD OF 9 OR MORE PERSONS: RISE 4"-7" MAX.,RUN 11"
MINIMUM; OCCUPANCY LOAD LESS THAN 9: RISE 8" MAX.,RUN 9" MIN. MINIMUM WIDTH 36" FOR
(OCCUPANCY LOAD LESS THAN 50). HEADROOM 6'-8". SEC 1009.3 EX 4 CBC.
31. PROVIDE (1) LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE-X GYPSUM WALL BOARD ON ALL WALLS & CEILINGS OF
SPACE UNDER STAIRS.
32. PROVIDE (1) LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE-X GYPSUM WALL BOARD ON ALL GARAGE SIDE WALLS &
CEILINGS BETWEEN GARAGE & HABITABLE SPACE.
33. RETAINING WALL PER. STRUClURAL DETAIL -PROVIDE WATER PROOFING, DRAINAGE & BACKFILL
AS PER. SOILS REPORT. SEC 1402A.4 CMC
34. WOOD SlUD FRAMED WALL WITH GYPSUM WALL BOARD FINISH ON INlERIOR SURFACE & CEMENT
srucco FINISH ON EXTERIOR. INTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2x4 SlUDS (14' MAX. HEIGHT) U.N.O. '
EXlERIOR WALLS TO BE 2x6 SlUDS U.N.O.
35. ARCH OR FRAMED OPENING
36. LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE.
37. LOW WALL-36" A.F.F. MINIMUM (VERIFY HEIGHT & CAP)
JS. LOW WALL BELOW-GYPSUM BOARD FINISH
39. BENCH
40. WINDOW SEAT
41. BOOKCASE
42. SKYLIGHT ABOVE LARR # 24622
43. BALCONY ABOVE
44. FLAT 2x4 PTDF FUR OUT W/ GYPSUM BOARD FINISH U.N.O.
45. INTERIOR DECORATIVE COLMN.-VERIFY SIZE & MATERIAL
46. EXTERIOR PRE-CAST CONCRETE COLUMN -U.N.O.
47. 22"xJO" ATTIC SCUTllE (MINIMUM) -PROVIDE 30"x36" ACCESS IF FAU IS IN ATTIC.
48. PULL DOl\tl ATTIC ACCESS STAIRS
49. PILASlER -VERIFY HEIGHT & SIZE
50. DRYER
51. WASHER
52. CLOTHS DRYER MOISTURE EXHAUST DUCTS SHALL TERMINA 1E OUTSIDE THE BUILDING AND HAVE
BACK-DRAFT DAMPER. EXHAUST DUCT IS LIMITED TO 14' WITH 2 ELBOWS. THIS SHALL BE REDUCED '
FOR EVERY ELBOW IN EXCESS TO 2. MINIMUM 4" DIA SMOOTH METALL DUCT. (504.3.2.2 CMC)
53. A.C. CONDENSING UNIT ON CONCRElE PAD. -PROVIDE SOUND ATlENUATION. -VERIFY ELECTRIC
REQUIREMENT.
54. COMBUSTION AIR VENT -VERIFY SIZE REQUIREMENT
55. FLOOR DRAIN PROVIDE OVERFLOW
56. TRENCH DRAIN
57. RECESSED SAFE
58. ELEVATOR -PROVIDE 1-HR RATED SHAFT CONSTRUCTION USING 5/8" TYPE-X DRYWALL EACH
SIDE OF SHAFT WALL. -VERIFY MANUFAClURER REQUIREMENT5.
59. ELECTRIC MAIN PANEL -VERIFY LOCATION W/ POYER CO.
60. ELECTRIC SUB-PANEL
61. SAUNA -PROVIDE EL.EC AS REQUIRED
62. WATERHEATER ON 18" HIGH PLATFORM. PROVIDE SEISMIC STRAPS AT TOP & BOTTOM. -
PROVIDE VENT
63. FAU ON 18" HIGH PLATFORM. -PROVIDE VENT & FRESH AIR INTAKE .
64. CHIMNEY FLUE.
65. LAUNDRY CHUTE -PROVIDE HOPPER DOOR W/ CHILD RESTRAINT.
66. GARAGE TO HOUSE DOOR-20 MIN. RAlED W/ SELF CLOSER, SMOKE GASKET, WEATHER
STRIPPING & TIMELY FRAME.
67. CONCRElE PATIO
68. CONCRElE SlEPS
69. GARAGE STORAGE ABOVE. -MININUM 4' -0" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR.
70. MASONARY FIREPLACE
71. WOODBURNING PREFAB. METAL FIREPLACE.
72. DIRECT -VENT GAS PREF AB. FIREPLACE BY "SUPERIOR" (ESIR 1077) WITH TIGHT FITTING MET AL
OR GLASS DOOR; OUTSIDE AIR INTAKE W/ DAMPER CONTROL; FLUE DAMPER AND CONTROL;
AND A FACTORY LISlED SPARK ARRESTOR. -11£NT THROUGH EXT. WALL OR ROOF.
73. ROOF BELOW
74. LINE OF BUILDING BELOW
75. BALCONY /DECK BELOW.
76. SHALLOW DECORATIVE BALCONY W/ GUARDRAIL (MININUM 42" AFF).
77. TANKL.ESS WATER HEATER
76. PROVIDE HARD WIRED AND INTERCONNECTED SMOKE DETECTORS WITIH
IN BASEMENT AREA MUST BE SOUND AUDIBUE IN AUL BEDROOMS.
BATTERY BACK-UP ADJACENT TO AND INSIDE BEDROOMS. SMOKE DElECTOR
79. DUCTS PENITRATING THE WALLS OR CEILINGS SEPARATING THE DWEWNG FROM THE GARAGE
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF A MINIMUM NO 26 GAGE (0.48 WIN.) SHEET STEEL OR OTHER
APPROVED MATERIAL (R302.5.2).
®
I f5 1 I
CENlER UNE
NOTE CALL-OUT
EXISTING WALL TO
REMAIN TYP.
EXISTING WALL TO
BE REMOVED TYP.
NEW STUD WAUL TO BE 2X6 U.O.N.
PROVIDE TWO LAYERS OF GRADE D PAPER UNDER
STUCCO APPLIED OVER WOOD SHEA TIHING(SHEAR
WALLSl. SEC. 2510.6 CBC
DOOR
WINDOW THIS WINDOW/DOOR MUST COMPLY WITH
UBC SEC 310.4 EMERGENCY ESCAPE REQ.
•
MIN. OPENABLE AREA = 5.7 N.S.F.
MIN. WIDTH = 20"
MIN. HEIGHT = 24"
MAX. SI LL HEIGHT. = 44 •
5
The design, dataDs and ideas contained in
this drawing are and shol remain the property
of Pacific Design Group Inc. No port there of shall
be copied, reproducocl, disclosed to others, or
used for any other work or projed without the
written consent of Pacific Design Group Inc.
Designer
Pacific Design Group
25332 NARBONNE AVE, SUITE 100
LOMITA, CA 90717
Phone: 310.808.7712
EMAIL: bcauthen@pddginc.com
www.pddginc.com
CONSUL TING ENGINEERS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
N2'. NAMVAR
ASSOCIATES
231 VISTA DEL MAR. STE. 0
REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277
(310) 540-7788 FAX (310) 510-7733
JOB No.
REVISIONS
NO. DATE
ISSUED
Issued for
PROGRESS
PRINTS
PROJECT TITLE
NEW HOME
JOB ADDRESS
-
REMARKS
Issued on
5325 BAYRIDGE ROAD, RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CA 90275
OWNER
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT:117
BLOCK: 2100
TRACT: 21169
Sheet Title
Job No.:
Date:
Drawn by:
FLOOR
PLANS
Checked by:
FILENAME
Drawing Type
PROGRESS
PRINTS
J-1810
07101119
B.C.
Drawing No.
A-102
SHEET NO. OF SHEETS
D-67
D-68
D
c
B
A
1
LINE OF
ROOF TYP.
NEW
FF.E
1·-0·
CK
85.~3
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I( 2.5:12
TYP.
LINE OF
GUTTER TYP.--------Ht---')!
I
I
I
LINE OF
BUILDING BELOW
:J
I( 2.5:12
TYP.
2
UJ 0 C)
0 IX)
°" ,...:
2.5:12,. m .. co TYP. UJ .:.J z UJ
NEW RIDGE
EL:696.90
NEW RIDGE
EL:696.30
I
I
I
I
I
I
L-~~~~~~~~rr=;:_J~ I
I
I
I
3
i'-o·
!Ef=~~~~~~~==\-==\-+--~LINE OF
ROOF TYP.
,--
1
I
~=:::':::::::j__j_ __ LINE OF
GUTTER TYP.
iE--+l==l==l--1----LINE OF
BUILDING BELOW
4
SHEET NOTES
1. NEW ROOF AREA TO BE FIRE RETARDANT 2-PC. CLAY
ROOF TILE BY "REDLAND" ICC# ESR-1489. OVER
2-LA YERS OF 40# ROOFING FELT. CLASS-A ROOF
TILE-MIN.
2. SHEET METAL GUTIER WITH DOWNSPOUT -PAINTED.
3. SHEET METAL CRICKET -PAINT TO MATCH ROOF COLOR.
4. SKYLIGHT -FLAT ACRYLIC LIGHT WITH BRONZE TINT.
5. ATTIC VENT -SHEET METAL PAINTED TO MATCH ROOF
TILE.
6. LINE OF BUILDING BELOW.
7. DECK/BALCONY AT LOWER LEVEL.
8.
9. SEE DET. 7 /A-601 FOR DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION TO
UNDERGROUND DRAIN
10. ENCLOSED ATIIC AND ENCLOSED RAFTER SPACES SHALL
HAVE CROSS VENTILATION FOR EACH SEPARATE SPACE BY
VENTILATING OPENINGS AGAINST THE ENTRACE OF RAIN.
(R806.1)
11. VENTILATION OPENINGS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST DIMENSIO
OF 1/16 INCH MINIMUM AND 1/4 INCH MAXIMUM (R806.1).
12. THE TOTAL NET FREE VENTILATING AREA SHALL NOT BE
LESS THAN 1/150 OF THE ARREA OF THE SPACE
VENTILATED (R806.1)
ROOFING SPECS
NEW ROOF AREA TO BE FIRE RETARDANT 2-PC. CLAY ROOF
TILE BY "REDLAND" ICC# ESR-1489. OVER 2-LAYERS OF
40# ROOFING FELT. CLASS-A ROOF TILE-MIN.
ATTIC VENT CALCS.
AREA 492 S.F. + 150 = I 3.3 S.F. REO. I
1 DORMER VENTS 0 1.88 S.F.=1.88
ADD 1 VENT TO PROVIDE COMBUSTION
AIR FOR FURNACE IN ATTIC
TOTAL PROVIDED 3
D
DORMER VENT (PLAN)
5
7.52 S.F. •
~~"'
DORMER VENT ELEVATION
The design, dataDs and ideas contained in
this drawing are and shol remain the property
of Pacific Design Group Inc. No port there of shall
be copied, reproducocl, disclosed to others, or
used for any other work or projed without the
written consent of Pacific Design Group Inc.
Designer
Pacific Design Group
25332 NARBONNE AVE, SUITE 100
LOMITA, CA 90717
Phone: 310.808.7712
EMAIL: bcauthen@pddginc.com
www.pddginc.com
CONSUL TING ENGINEERS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
N2'. NAMVAR
ASSOCIATES
231 VISTA DEL MAR, STE. D
REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277
(310) 540-7788 FAX (310) 510-7733
JOB No. -
REVISIONS
NO. DATE REMARKS
ISSUED
Issued for Issued on
PROGRESS
PRINTS
PROJECT TITLE
NEW HOME
JOB ADDRESS
5325 BAYRIDGE ROAD, RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CA 90275
OWNER
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT:117
BLOCK: 2100
TRACT: 21169
Sheet Title
ROOF
PLAN
Job No.: J-1810
Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
FILENAME
07101119
8.C.
Drawing Type Drawing No.
PROGRESS
PRINTS
A-104
SHEET NO. OF SHEETS
D-69
D-70
D
--
c
--
B
--
A
700.75 c\t. --- -----f;~'--';';-o==---lol~-'!..---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---
MAX ALLOWED y
________ --":M:fiA"'X--'R~l~D~GE~--loc\t.,,__
EL697.80 V
TOP PLATE A. --- -----'i~~~~---1.1~-t EL693.50 y
--------------+
2ND FLOOR ...I. - - --~~~<'--ii~ EL685.50 y
_____________ ___,
__ _ _ 1ST FLOOR
____ -~EL675 50
~#-------------------------------------------L-~':._ __ ------------------------------------------------.
TRANSLUCENT GLASS
PRIVACY PANEL " -·------ ---- ---- -" I I
' -+--~·~ --- -~ ~
"\.o.C·
----..... -+--"'
-
'
l
/
.....
/
/
;
;
I
,
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I '
(
-
;
;
I
/
/
I
,,
' ' ' '
' '
TRANSLUCENT GLASS
/
PRIVACY PANEL -'r
I '
TOP PLATE
EL695.00
---ir;o==~==i---~ ~~=~:~N ~:=~~=~~=~~=
// '-'-"\.o.C
/ '
/
'o
I
'be
'o
I
Cn
2ND FLOOR
EL685.50
' =E~~~~~=-=-=z=-~---- --- ---
'
I ~
I \
I \
It \
\ I
\ I
\ I . ,__
;
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE:1/4"-1'-0"
'
I '
I \
I \
It '
\ I
\ I
\ I
I\
I/
. ,__
;
• <O
I
Cn
-~
1ST FLOOR
El 616.0Q__ = = ==
~°.a?x 7~LLOWED ~ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - -
.,~
_____ --llMt';fA1.:lX~R~l~DG~Ef---ii,.i.l+--"I.-•--______________________________________________ ~...:. __________________________________________________________________________ _
EL697.80 y • ~
'o
I
'be
• "' I
Cn
lo
I
"'
'o
I
'be
_______ 1-l=S:'-'T~FL~O~O~R,___.,d.I'!-· __, • _....,_ __
EL675.50 V
1
'
'
~mm~ ffim' Effi!f' ~,__ IDiill,.__TilIIlmrmIIOI:ImI:r~ __.,.__
TRANSLUCENT GLAS-::.--r----.'\ I I
PRIVACY PANEL I : I
,
I
\
/ /
I
I
\
\
2
I
'
/
/
/
'
'
/
/
/
3
/
/
/
_,
----._,
/
/
/
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE:1/4"-1'-0"
'
'
/
/
/
7
4
/
/
/
--
'
'
'o
I
'be
'o
I
'be
'o
I
Cn
5
The design, dataDs and ideas contained in
this drawing are and shol remain the property
of Pacific Design Group Inc. No port there of shall
be copied, reproducocl, disclosed to others, or
used for any other work or projed without the
written consent of Pacific Design Group Inc.
Designer
Pacific Design Group
25332 NARBONNE AVE, SUITE 100
LOMITA, CA 90717
Phone: 310.808.7712
EMAIL: bcauthen@pddginc.com
www.pddginc.com
CONSUL TING ENGINEERS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
N2'. NAMVAR
ASSOCIATES
231 VISTA DEL MAR. STE. D
REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277
(310) 540-7788 FAX (310) 510-7733
JOB No.
REVISIONS
NO. DATE
ISSUED
Issued for
PROGRESS
PRINTS
PROJECT TITLE
NEW HOME
JOB ADDRESS
-
REMARKS
Issued on
5325 BAYRIDGE ROAD, RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CA 90275
OWNER
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT:117
BLOCK: 2100
TRACT: 21169
Sheet Title
ELEVATIONS
Job No.:
Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
FILENAME
Drawing Type
PROGRESS
PRINTS
J-1810
07101119
B.C.
Drawing No.
A-202
SHEET NO. OF SHEETS
D-71
From:Olivier Enders
To:Octavio Silva; Rachel Enders; Omi Enders
Subject:Re: 5325 Bayridge Rd.
Date:Friday, June 21, 2019 7:11:43 AM
Attachments:5325 Bayridge_Continuation Report.pdf
Hi Octavio,
Thanks for reviewing the revised plans with my mom, Gerda.
In talking to her on the phone, after that, she still seems concerned that the
placement of the new sticks on the property are showing the fireplace to be awfully
close and in a position where smoke and ashes will immediately come her way due
to the west ocean wind and that the fireplace placement is still so big and bulky and
visible from her best viewing area of the south bay ocean view. Gerda also would
like the upstairs eastside bathroom and bedroom windows to be made opaque so
that they wouldn't easily be looking down on her at 5319.
She is happy that the new plans show a much reduced deck on her side in the back
and is grateful for that. It seems to her the proposed eastside upstairs additional set
back isn't continuous along the length and doesn't really reduce the bulk that much.
In general, I am pleased that they yielded a little to the city requests of 2 foot height
reduction and 850 sq ft bulk reduction, but I understand they are proposing only
about 1.5 foot height reduction and 744 sq ft reduction in the new plans. Why does
everything have to be such a negotiation ??? They should immediately change the
plans to offer over at least 2 foot height reductions as the city called for and also
comply with the requested square foot reduction. End of story.
Remember, this is a monstrosity they are building compared to the 3 other brand new
homes immediately to the west of them. I am confident the Planning Commission
will do the right thing, but please keep the pressure on these people!
Thanks
Olivier
310 918 6327
On Thursday, June 20, 2019, 5:28:22 PM MDT, Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Olivier,
For your records, I’ve attached the continuation staff report for the proposed project at 5325 Bayridge Rd.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
D-72
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5234
D-73
From:Frank & Sue Semelka
To:Octavio Silva
Cc:Ara Mihranian
Subject:revised plans for 5325 Bayridge Rd.
Date:Friday, June 28, 2019 4:11:24 PM
HI Octavio,
Regarding the revised plans for the proposed project at 5325 Bayridge Rd.; I do appreciate
revisions made but I still have concerns.
1) Most important to me is still a privacy concern from the 2nd story North facing balconies.
Reducing the size is helpful but as I stated before the new silhouette was constructed, the
proposed “solid” side panels are more decorative than functional and do not protect privacy.
Due to the scalloped design anyone on the balconies will still have direct views into our yard.
The new design has an even MORE direct view into our main living space than before. While
yes,we can keep blinds closed to protect that, being forced to do that to protect our privacy
will make our main living space very dark. The continued invasion of privacy from the north
facing 2nd story balconies puts us in a very uncomfortable living situation and I strongly
object.
2) Reducing the overall height by 1.8’ is not much at all and is still setting a new precedence
which concerns me.
3) Bulk and Mass: Bringing the roofline out to the North end of the property to cover the
ground floor deck still makes the structure appear bulky and massive from the back.
Removing the cover from that deck would help.
Again I know the placement of the fireplace is not a concern for Planning Commission but the
new design puts the fireplace on the west even closer to my bedroom window. Can fireplace
be taller so it doesn’t vent right outside my bedroom window?
I thank you and the Planning Commission for your consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely,
Susan Semelka
D-74
From:Frank & Sue Semelka
To:Octavio Silva
Cc:Ara Mihranian
Subject:proposed revisions to 5325 Bayridge Rd.
Date:Monday, July 01, 2019 7:07:47 AM
Hi Octavio,
This email is an amendment to my previous email I sent to you. In my previous email I stated I
thought the roof covering the ground floor deck added to the appearance of bulk and mass.
Evaluating that further, I do not object to that cover.
However, I can’t express strongly enough how much I DO object to the continued Privacy
infringement of both north facing 2nd story balconies. The added scalloped decorative panels
do NOT mitigate that. The solid panels on both north facing balconies need to be at least 6’
tall all the way out to the north edge of the deck to be effective.
As far as height of the structure: Since 5325 Bayridge is not proposing to grade their property
down, as both our project and the project at 5345 Bayridge had to do in order to achieve a 2nd
story while staying compliant with neighborhood compatibility of the 20 closest homes, the
HIGHEST elevation to the ridge line should be kept consistent - NOT THE LOWEST. That's
20’ - NOT 22.3’.
Lastly, I would VERY much appreciate it if the west fireplace were taller so as NOT to vent
RIGHT OUTSIDE MY BEDROOM WINDOW.
Thank you again for your consideration of my concerns,
Sincerely,
Susan Semelka
D-75
From:Frank & Sue Semelka
To:Octavio Silva
Cc:Ara Mihranian
Subject:5325 Bayridge Rd. CASE NO. ZON2016-00358 Revisions
Date:Sunday, June 30, 2019 8:52:28 PM
June 30, 2019
To the Planning Commission of RPV:
Hello,
This email is in response to proposed revisions to the project at 5325 Bayridge Rd.
My name is Frank Semelka and I'm the next door neighbor to the West of this
property. While I appreciate the proposed modifications, little has been done to
address the major items of Bulk & Mass and Privacy to bring them in line with
recent rulings by the RPV Planning Commission. Specifically, the structure is still
3ft higher relative to the existing grade than the RPV Planning Commission allowed
us to build. The second story decks still do not have the 6ft tall opaque structures
on the West and East side that the RPV Planning Commission forced us to
incorporate into our structure.
Concerns:
(1) BULK AND MASS:
HEIGHT: The proposed height reduction of 1.8ft from 24.55’ to 22.3’ relative
to the highest existing grade misses the point. Our home was limited to 19.55’
relative to the highest existing grade. The revised height is 77.5% above the height
variance we were finally granted after a more than 5 year struggle with the RPV
Planning Commission. What matters for Bulk & Mass, and to neighbors, is the roof
height relative to existing grade. Yes, we were given a 22.5’ height to lowest
finished grade, but that was accomplished ONLY BY GRADING DOWN. It is
unacceptable to have required us to grade down and not our neighbor on
EXACTLY the same lot size, in the Planning Commission defined 20 closed
homes, and right next door to us. For our project, ceiling heights, floorplan &
elevations, even roof structure and window dimensions all had to be compromised
to meet height requirements of the RPV Planning Commission. We even asked for
and were denied not having to account for the curvature of clay roof tiles in the
height - and as such ended up having to notch every roof beam and customize
window heights. The RPV Planning Commission must have consistency in
requirements for structure heights - especially for immediately adjacent properties.
D-76
If the applicant wants a 22’ structure, they must grade down.
The city determined that our proposed 3671sf home, even after grading down,
was…. “ massive and out of scale as viewed by motorists traveling east on
Bayridge and south on Birchfield. Specifically since the project site is located at
the end of a ’ T ' intersection. The city feels that the overall height - is too
overwhelming as seen from the public right of way.” Quoted from staff report.
The proposed house is dead center in the middle of that intersection.
It would be egregiously inconsistent and unconscionable to now allow the proposed
height variance, 77.5% larger than approved for our project, right next door at the
very same intersection. The elevated floor heights would become a privacy issue,
looking down into our bedrooms, bathrooms, and kitchen. I am extremely
concerned, that if maximum height and grading consistency are not followed, the
property on the other side of us will tower over our property when they build a 2nd
story. After grading, that lot is now 6 ‘ higher than ours.
For our project, staff also found concern for “cumulative view impairment” stating
“original proposal of 25’ caused significant view impairment of the city lights from
the primary viewing area … if 5345 Bayridge were to propose a similar structure at
the same height”. This was rationale for reducing our height to 20.25’, which was
further reduced to 19.55’. Again, it would be egregiously inconsistent to approve a
height variation above limitations already imposed on an identical adjacent
property.
Living Area: The revised size of 4091 sf (4560 SF total) is still much larger than
neighboring homes including the 3671 sf home our project was reduced to by the
RPV planning commission. The proposed project is still 11.5% larger than we were
allowed. We can’t even use our front door because the RPV Planning Commission
repeatedly cut our square footage down to the point where we can’t even shade our
front door. We were forced to use special toilets just to be able to get bathroom
doors to close. Again, our project living area was cut to 3671 sq ft due to Bulk and
Mass concerns before finally being approved on appeal by the City Council. It
would be inconsistent to approve a structure 11.5% larger, after denying our smaller
proposal 3 times, on an immediately adjacent, identical size lot, on the basis of
Bulk and Mass.
(2) INVASION OF PRIVACY: We appreciate the reduction in size of the
second story decks. However, they still do not incorporate the 6’ opaque
panels covering the entire West and East sides that were mandated in our
D-77
plans. The proposed decorative scrolls serve no purpose for protecting privacy
and afford direct visual access to our outside view space, kitchen, dining
rooms and great room. I will remind the RPV Planning Commission that these
panels were so important that were were descended on by the Lomita Sheriff
on our first Easter Sunday in the new house because the previous owner of
5325 Bayridge "didn’t like" the type of opaque material used and RPV Code
Enforcement sent them out.
To get past Privacy concerns, we were forced to install huge 6’ tall opaque panels to
prevent any possibility of any view into adjacent neighbor’s yards from the deck.
We were told “panels any lower would still allow infringement of privacy”. Indeed,
the RPV Planning Commission included the following in their final
recommendation to the City Council for denial of our project --- “staff
recommended and the appellant agreed to the use of fixed, opaque windows and
inclusion of opaque panels to the sides of the proposed rear balcony. As a result of
these changes, staff and the Planning Commission agreed that the privacy impact
had been eliminated. However, as part of this appeal, the appellant is requesting
the removal of the opaque panels on the balcony. If this specific request is granted,
staff believes that the privacy impact concern will become an issue again.” The
proposed deck at 5325 still includes a very large cover, not included in square
footage calculations, which significantly increases the structure Bulk & Mass
appearance, as well as restricting/blocking our view eastward. We still ask that the
cover feature be eliminated.
I still have Privacy concerns from the proposed West facing windows on either side
of the fireplace, which will look right into my kitchen window. I have similar
concerns regarding the proposed window in the stairway, which will have direct
view into one of our bedrooms. Those windows, if retained, should have to be
opaqued, just as we were forced, by the Planning Commission, to opaque our
Master Bedroom windows, for the same reasons. Planting trees or shrubs as
proposed by the architect, does not mitigate this concern. Plants can be taken out,
moved, or later die. Also, we have direct experience, with this very property, a
multi-decade absolute nightmare, due to negligent overgrowth and rodent
infestation, as well as a fraudulent lawsuit for trimming overgrowth from our
property.
(3) HEALTH and SAFETY: The fireplace chimney on the West side is much
lower in height than the East side fireplace and extremely close to the property line.
At its proposed height, it will vent right into our master suite windows. It needs to
be vented at a different location or eliminated entirely. Toxic fumes, including
carbon monoxide, even from a natural gas fireplace, will be swept into our master
D-78
suite, if this feature is permitted. This is an unacceptable health and safety hazard.
Solutions, such as a direct vent with horizontal runs are available, or move the vent
so it does not pose the health and safety hazard of the proposed design.
In summary, changes to the proposed structure are appreciated, however there are
still significant inconsistencies between RPV Planning Commission requirements
for Bulk & Mass and Privacy between our project, neighboring projects, and that
proposed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Frank Semelka
D-79
From:Frank & Sue Semelka
To:Octavio Silva
Cc:Ara Mihranian
Subject:Re: proposed revisions to 5325 Bayridge Rd.
Date:Wednesday, July 03, 2019 2:26:48 AM
Octavio,
A clarification to my Wife's suggestion to mitigate the health hazard of combustion products
venting directly into our Master Bedroom windows. If the applicant wishes to have a
fireplace as located in the NW corner of their property, they need to employ a means to move
the exhaust products away from our bedroom windows. A common building practice is to
employ a Direct Vent fireplace which allows horizontal exhaust runs, allowing the chimney to
be placed on a 2-story wall not subject to Planning Commission setback requirements. Our
home uses two of these fireplaces precisely because of restrictions the RPV Planning
Commission put on our project - right next door. My future health and safety must not be
compromised because of someone’s aesthetic desire - especially when such an obvious
solution exists. The whole reason fireplaces, even natural gas burning ones, exhaust to the
outside of the structure, rather just into the living space, is because the combustion products
are TOXIC. Every natural gas burning appliance, by law, must vent to the outside of the
home. It is absolutely unacceptable to allow a natural gas exhaust vent to exist a few inches
from a frequently opened window into a crucial bedroom area. If the RPV Planning and Safety
Dept is unclear on this hazard, I will be glad to have a representative from the So Cal Gas Co.
testify to the hazards of carbon monoxide poisoning and the risks of venting that and other
combustion products into a sleeping area.
Also, in the prior note, my wife incorrectly rounded off the height limit enforced on our
project - right next door on an identical rectangular lot with a flat building pad. The height
limit is NOT 20’, it is 19.55’ as stated in a rejection letter from Ms. So Kim, when we tried so
hard to avoid having to notch every rafter on our new home and customize the height of all the
windows and doors, solely because the RPV Planning Commission insisted that the 19.55’
maximum height had to include the curvature of roof tiles. Although that letter originated in
your office and I have re-sent it several times, I will be happy to send it again so there is no
confusion on this point.
Sincerely,
Frank Semelka
On Jul 1, 2019, at 7:07 AM, Frank & Sue Semelka <frankensue2@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Octavio,
This email is an amendment to my previous email I sent to you. In my previous
email I stated I thought the roof covering the ground floor deck added to the
appearance of bulk and mass. Evaluating that further, I do not object to that cover.
D-80
However, I can’t express strongly enough how much I DO object to the continued
Privacy infringement of both north facing 2nd story balconies. The added
scalloped decorative panels do NOT mitigate that. The solid panels on both north
facing balconies need to be at least 6’ tall all the way out to the north edge of
the deck to be effective.
As far as height of the structure: Since 5325 Bayridge is not proposing to grade
their property down, as both our project and the project at 5345 Bayridge had to
do in order to achieve a 2nd story while staying compliant with neighborhood
compatibility of the 20 closest homes, the HIGHEST elevation to the ridge line
should be kept consistent - NOT THE LOWEST. That's 20’ - NOT 22.3’.
Lastly, I would VERY much appreciate it if the west fireplace were taller so as
NOT to vent RIGHT OUTSIDE MY BEDROOM WINDOW.
Thank you again for your consideration of my concerns,
Sincerely,
Susan Semelka
D-81
From:Frank & Sue Semelka
To:Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian
Subject:Re: 5325 Bayridge Rd.
Date:Wednesday, July 03, 2019 2:56:30 AM
Octavio,
Lest there be any confusion about the maximum height the RPV Planning Commission
enforced on our project, on an identically-sized flat building pad immediately adjacent to the
subject property, here is the email again. Please note this “clarification” was issued after we
had demolished our existing home and construction of the new home had started. Please also
note that the timing coincided with the largest recession since the Great Depression (no bank
would authorize any loans, equities fell to 30% of value), and precisely with an RPV Planning
Commission decision to implement and rigidly enforce a new policy of no longer allowing
construction start on approved projects to be delayed for a fee. If we had delayed building our
home even a few days more, the entire 5+ year process of getting our project approved by the
City of RPV, along with all the money and time invested, along with all the life-threatening
health implications and stresses, would have been forfeited.
Per the RPV Planning Commission, the height limit is —"19.55’, as measured from
the highest existing grade to the ridgeline." Not a millimeter more.
Sincerely,
Frank Semelka
On Apr 28, 2019, at 8:35 AM, Frank & Sue Semelka <frankensue2@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello Ara, Octavio,
I have not received a response to the email below and wanted to make sure you
had received it. Since the hearing date for 5325 Bayridge is approaching, it is
important that Building & Safety, as well as the Planning Commission are
considering all the facts in this case. Please confirm receipt of this email.
Sincerely,
Frank Semelka
On Mar 31, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Frank & Sue Semelka
<frankensue2@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ara,
D-82
Since you were short on time at the Friday March 29 meeting, I
didn’t get a chance to convey the additional height restriction
imposed on our project by RPV B&S after approval. After our project
was started and existing structure demolished, So Kim claimed there
was an error in the approval statement of 0.7 feet. She “confused" the
highest existing grade with the survey street reference and as a result
our project was graded down too low and effectively cut 0.7 feet off
of our approved 4.25 ft height variance! She and B&S fervently
enforced a max height variance of 3.55 ft. relative to existing grade,
because of the RPV B&S error.
This is key because every window/door/bi-fold door on the back of
the house had to be custom sized due to the extreme height limit. We
begged for a few inches to minimize the impact and were denied.
We have over a quarter million dollars in cost attributable to that
alone. Every single rafter on the back of the house had to be notched
to lower the roof height a few inches. It also exacerbates height
differentials between adjacent properties. All this because of a
fervent unsubstantiated zeal by RPV B&S to enforce a subjective
standard of minimizing "Bulk and Mass”. At least that was the stated
rationale. Despite substantial lengthy and costly efforts by our
attorney, architect, and myself, we could not get B&S to budge. (see
email ref below)
No laws or statutes relative to Bulk and Mass have changed since our
project was approved, nor have their been any related voter approved
initiatives since our project timeframe, so consideration of the
proposed project on the immediately adjacent, identically sized lot,
must be treated identically — especially from a height variation
approval standpoint. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Frank Semelka
From: So Kim [mailto:SoK@rpv.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 2:52 PM
To: Louie Tomaro
Subject: RE: Semelka
Hi Louie,
Condition No. 17 of the approved City Council Resolution
says:
The maximum overall height shall not exceed 22.92', as
measured from the point where the lowest foundation or
slab meets the finished grade, to the existing ridgeline of
the structure; and 20.25', as measured from the highest
D-83
existing grade from the ridgeline. 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.
Looking at the approved plans, the lowest point is 97.33’
with a ridgeline of 120.25’. This calculates out to 22.92’ in
overall height. You are correct in that the second part
shown in red should say 19.55’, as measured from the
highest existing grade to the ridgeline since the highest
existing grade is 100.7, not 100.0.
However, the key word is ‘and’ shown on the condition of
approval. As such, although the second part of the sentence
may have had a typo, the project was approved as a 22.92’
max structure, measured from 97.33’ lowest post-
construction grade.
If the property owners would like to increase the approved
height, we will have to go back to the City Council for a
decision.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Assistant Planner
<image002.jpg>City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5228 / sok@rpv.com
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/
On Mar 25, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Octavio Silva
<OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Frank & Susan,
Ara and I are planning on visiting the project site at 5325
Bayridge Rd. this Friday, March 29th. Do you have some time
to meet us on your property to further discuss your
concerns? If so, please let me know what range of time
works best for you.
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
D-84
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5234
From: Frank & Sue Semelka
[mailto:frankensue2@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 12:14 PM
To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: 5325 Bayridge Rd.
Thanks Octavio. After we talked to the architect we
weren’t sure if any changes had been proposed. It looks
like maybe they reduced the height 11inches.
Ben sounded like he was reluctant to do much up front.
He said he knew how the game was played and wasn’t
going in with nothing left to give up. It will be
interesting to see how this project plays out. We
originally asked for 25.17' and the staff put in the report
that “even though the applicant has incorporated
numerous design elements to create a smaller appearing
structure, staff continues to feel that the resulting project
is massive and out of scale as viewed from motorists
traveling east on Bayridge Road and south on Birchfield
Ave. Specifically , since the project site is located at the
end of a “T” intersection, it is highly visible from
motorist traveling on Bayridge Road and Birchfield Ave.
Staff feels that the overall height of 25.17’ is too
overwhelming as seen from the public right-of-way and
results in a massive appearing structure.” As you
know, we then proposed to grade down to have 20’ Max.
height and 3671 sf residence with a 653sf tandem
garage. That even was denied by planning staff and
Commission and had to be appealed to City Counsel.
Anyway, I know you know all of that. I can only hope
the city will stay consistent with their findings and be
fair, even though there is a different team representing
the city now. I do know too well the argument of looking
at each property individually, but how can the findings
for two properties that are right next to each other, being
the same size lot, the same public right of way exposure,
the same surrounding mostly single story homes, etc.,
etc., be looked at differently?
D-85
Thank you for your consideration. I do very much
appreciate it.
Kind regards,
Susan
On Mar 13, 2019, at 11:27 AM, Octavio
Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Susan,
The proposed structure size is 5,332 sq. ft. and
consists of the following:
1.) 2,582 sq. ft. 1st floor
2.) 2,105 sq. ft. 2nd floor
3.) 645 sq. ft. three car garage
The structure size does not include the deck
areas, which total 507 sq. ft.
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5234
From: Frank & Sue Semelka
[mailto:frankensue2@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 11:22 AM
To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: 5325 Bayridge Rd.
Thank you Octavio. What is the overall size
of the home? Can you please give me a
breakdown? Thank you.
D-86
Susan
On Mar 13, 2019, at 11:07 AM,
Octavio Silva
<OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Susan,
The project proposes a maximum
height of 25.1’. The size of the 2nd
story deck at the rear of the
residence will be 437 sq. ft. in
area.
Please let me know if you have
any further questions.
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development
Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
90275
www.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5234
From: Frank & Sue Semelka
[mailto:frankensue2@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13,
2019 10:56 AM
To: Octavio Silva
<OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 5325 Bayridge Rd.
Good Morning Octavio,
Are the proposed plans for 5325
Bayridge Rd. still asking for
26’ height? It is really hard to
tell from the ribbons.
Can you please confirm the
D-87
proposed Max. height, as well
as the proposed size of the 2nd
story North facing deck and
total square footage?
I am planning on sending
photos of the flags from inside
our house showing my privacy
concerns from the North facing
2nd story deck. As I expressed
earlier, there will be a direct
view into my kitchen window
and great room, as well into our
rear yard. It is hard to see the
impact with the small ribbons
used which is why those were
chosen.
I also have a safety concern
with the height of the fireplace
on the west side. It looks like it
will vent close to our windows.
Thanks,
Susan
D-88
From:Frank & Sue Semelka
To:Octavio Silva
Cc:Ara Mihranian
Subject:Re: Appeal Request_5325 Bayridge Rd.
Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 10:08:48 AM
Good Morning Octavio,
Frank and I are back in town and I have had a chance to review your email better (Frank has
not had a chance to do that yet). I am happy to hear the Applicant has agreed to 6’ high
privacy panels. Yes, The proposed draft language modification is acceptable to me.
Regarding condition No. 18: You are understanding our request correctly. We are requesting
the city stay consistent and fair by restricting the maximum height of the structure to 19.17’ as
measured from the HIGHEST grade (street view). The Planning Commission used the lowest
grade comparison which is not appropriate since both properties used as comparison for
approval had to grade down 3’ to comply with the restriction of 19.17’ from the STREET
VIEW (highest grade). 5325 is not grading down, so to make a fair comparison the highest
grade needs to be considered. 5345 and 5329 Bayridge Rd. have a 3’ difference between the
highest and lowest grade. 5325 does not.
The reason being is BOTH our project and Shiang’s project at 5345 Bayridge were
restricted to that height due to neighborhood compatibly concerns. Our two projects were
used for comparison and subsequent approval by the Planning Commission of 5325 Bayridge
Rd. To allow a property right next door, that has all the exact same neighborhood
compatibility issues as the city found with our project, to build to 22.3’ from the highest grade
is UNJUST. We had asked for that and were denied!
> Because they are at the ’T’ of the intersection of Bayridge and Birchfield, they are highly
visible from motorist traveling east on Bayridge and north on Birchfield, especially due to the
sloping nature of the topography of Bayridge and Birchfield. (Again, the quote from our
findings).
>They are also surrounded by mostly single story homes with the exception of our home
(5329) and Mr. and Mrs. Shiang’s homeThe Planning Commission used the lowest grade
comparison which is not appropriate since both properties used for comparison had to grade
down 3’ to comply with the restriction of 19.17’ from the HIGHEST grade. 5325 is not
grading down, so to make a fair comparison the highest grade needs to be considered. (5345) -
both of which were restricted to a maximum height of 19.17’ from the highest grade because
of that.
>Their existing building pad is already higher than the small 1 story home directly to the east.
(Another direct quote from our findings.)
It was not our choice, or the Shiang’s choice, to go to the expense and building challenges to
grade our property down 3'. It was necessary in order to achieve a 2 story home given the
restriction of a maximum height of 19.17’ from the HIGHEST grade (street view).
All of the reasons and concerns given by the city as to why anything over 19.17’ from the
STREET VIEW (highest grade) still apply to 5325 Bayridge Rd. It is not consistent and is
unjust to allow them to build to 22.3’ from Highest grade when we were denied that.
It makes no sense at all to make the comparison from the lowest grade since both projects
E-1
used for approval had to grade down 3'. What matters is comparison from the street view - not
from the graded or lowest grade since 5325 is not lowering their building pad.
It should make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE who built first. The reasons for the finding of
neighborhood compatibility - or not- by the city has not changed since we built our house, or
when the Shiang’s built their house. We are asking the City Counsel to uphold these findings
and stay consistent with the maximum allowed building height from THE HIGHEST GRADE
OF 19.17’.
Frank will be sending his opinions and concerns in an additional email. You had mentioned
you were preparing the staff report so I wanted to get this to you.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Semelka
On Sep 13, 2019, at 7:10 AM, Susan Macshara-Semelka
<frankensue2@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Octavio,
We are out of the country until Tues. sept 17th. We will respond with
specifics via email then. But yes, those are the basic requests for reasons
we will specify when we return. Really, nothing new from the appeal
letter. 6’ opaque panels for privacy and request for consistency of city
ruling from highest grade due to bulk and mass concerns, as compared
to both our project and project of 5345 Bayridge Rd.
Thank you.
Susan
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 10, 2019, at 6:39 PM, Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
wrote:
Hi Frank/ Susan,
I’m in the process of preparing the staff report for the Appeal request at
5325 Bayridge Rd, which is to be considered by the City Council on
October 1st. I want to check in with you to make sure that I understand
the requests in your appeal letter. I’ve attached a copy of the appeal
letter for your reference.
E-2
It is my understanding that with regards to Appeal Reason No. 1, you are
requesting that Condition No. 22 of the PC Resolution No. 2019-16 (see
attachment) be amended to require the rear deck privacy panels be 6’ in
height. I’ve worked with the Applicant to address this request, and he has
agreed to modify Condition No. 22 in order to require the privacy panels
to be 6’ in height. The draft language is located below for your review.
Please confirm that the modification is acceptable to you.
22. The Property Owner shall be responsible for
maintaining 6’ hightranslucent privacy panels for
each of the second-story decks located along the
north elevation of the proposed residence.
I’m terms of Appeal Reason No. 2, it is my understanding that you are
requesting that Condition No. 18 be modified to restrict the maximum
height of the residence to 19.17’ as measured from the highest existing
grade to the roof ridgeline. I’ve discussed this request with the Applicant,
and he indicated that he would like to have this request considered by the
City Council.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the
information listed below.
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5234
<PC Reso.2019-16.pdf>
<5325 Bayridge Rd_Appeal Letter.pdf>
E-3
From:Frank & Sue Semelka
To:Octavio Silva
Cc:Ara Mihranian
Subject:Re: Appeal Request_5325 Bayridge Rd.
Date:Wednesday, September 18, 2019 2:54:21 AM
Attachments:Appeal to City Council for 5325 Bayridge Rd..doc
ATT00001.htm
Ara and Octavio,
Attached is the appeal letter sent to you on July 22. That is the information we submitted to
you for the appeal. The 5345 Bayridge property, which the Planning Commission is now
proposing to allow to build to 22.3’, is the VERY PROPERTY (same “neighborhood”,
identical size, immediately adjacent) which objected to our height variation request on the
basis of bulk and mass and which was used as a basis for denial of our project. It is
unconscionable for the Commission to now permit that height variation, which was denied to
us, on the basis of complaints from 5345 Bayridge.
Please respond back acknowledging receipt of this email and letter and confirm that it will be
included in Staff analysis for the appeal.
E-4
July 22, 2019
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
We are writing to appeal the height variation approved by the Planning
Commission on July 9, 2019 for the project located at 5325 Bayridge Rd. -
(CASE NO. ZON2016-00358)
The grounds for appeal are two-fold:
> 1) PRIVACY INFRINGEMENT FROM 2ND STORY NORTH-FACING
BALCONIES
SPECIFIC ACTION REQUESTED: Stipulate in conditions of approval,
opaque privacy panels 6 ft. in height out to the north edge of the decks on
both east and west sides to prevent views over the top of the opaque
panels. 5 ft panels still permit views over the top.
REASON FOR GRIEVANCE: There was already a finding of
unreasonable infringement of privacy for abutting properties to the E and
W, from the N facing decks of 5325 Bayridge Rd. Opaque panels were
added to plans on the east and west sides, but the height requirement of
those panels is not specified in the conditions for approval. Without that
requirement, panels can be changed at a later date. Opaque panels put in
place to mitigate privacy infringement on occupants of abutting properties
aren’t effective if people can see over the top of them. The ability to see
over the top of the panels still imposes an adverse privacy infringement
and creates a source of discomfort and stress. For reference, the 5329
Bayridge project required 6 ft opaque panels out to the northern most
extent of our deck due to privacy concerns precisely from 5325 Bayridge.
> 2) MOST IMPORTANT GREIVANCE:
MAXIUM HEIGHT APPROVAL OF 22.4’ FROM LOWEST FINISHED
GRADE AND 22.3’ FROM HIGHEST EXISTING GRADE TO RIDGE LINE
.
SPECIFIC ACTION REQUESTED: Maintain Neighborhood Compatibility
and consistency with adjacent projects, restricting the maximum height to
19.17’ from the HIGHEST EXISTING grade to the ridge line, as was
imposed on both 5329 and 5345 Bayridge Rd. - the two recently
approved 2-story homes in closest proximity, used as comparisons for
approval of 5325 project.
REASON FOR GRIEVANCE: IT IS EXPLICITLY NOT COMPATIBLE,
CONSISTENT, NOR FAIR TO APPROVE the same HEIGHT for 5325
E-5
July 22, 2019
relative to highest existing grade as was imposed on both 5329 and
5345 for the LOWEST FINISHED GRADE. BOTH PROJECTS (5329 and
5345) WERE DIRECTED TO LOWER THE BUILDING PAD BY
GRADING DOWN 3 FEET in order to make the findings of neighborhood
compatibility and mitigate concerns for appearance of Bulk and Mass. To
remain consistent and fair in “making the finding for neighborhood
compatibility” (the very rationale for using 5329 & 5345 projects as
comparisons to 5325), the maximum height must be compared against the
highest existing grade - 19.17’ for 5325 and 18.75’ for 5345 Bayridge Rd.
In our case (5329), the height limitation was attributed to BOTH
compatibility with the closest surrounding homes AS WELL AS “the public
right-of-way”. “Specifically, since the project site is located at the end of a
“T” intersection, it is highly visible from motorists traveling on Bayridge Rd.
and Birchfield Ave.” - a direct quote from our report. It was determined that
“because of the existing topography of Bayridge Rd. sloping down in an
easterly direction there was a particular concern of Bulk and Mass as
viewed from the neighboring property to the east because our building pad
was already higher. These exact same circumstances exist for 5325
Bayridge Rd. That lot has an even more prominent location at the “T”
of the intersection of Bayridge and Birchfield Ave. and because of the
sloping nature of Bayridge Rd in an easterly direction, the existing
building pad is higher than the small one story home directly to the
east. It is completely incompatible and inconsistent to approve that
project for a maximum height of 22.3’ from the highest existing grade
and not require lowering the building pad. It is also crucial to consider
what this portends for 5337, currently a single story, two lots away from
5325 and directly between 5329 and 5345, both of which have already
been graded down due to Planning Commission findings.
22.4’ is the height we proposed on our 2nd revision and we were denied.
Even on our 3rd revision, grading down 3’ and reducing the building size to
4324 sf with a MAX. HEIGHT of 19.17’ FROM THE HIGHEST EXISTING
GRADE, we were still denied due to above reasons. We had to appeal to
City Council and get testimony of approval from a large number of
neighbors, before finally being approved 5-0.
Had we been given the opportunity to build to 22.3’ relative to maximum
existing grade, and not have to go to the complexity and expense of
grading to comply with a maximum height of 19.17’, it would have
prevented many of the challenges we face today and will continue to face,
as a result of having to adhere to such stringent restrictions. THERE IS
E-6
July 22, 2019
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DIFFERENT BETWEEN OUR TWO
PROPERTIES.
IN SUMMARY:
5325 BAYRIDGE RD. APPROVED FOR HEIGHT VARIATION:
>Max. height from highest existing grade 22.3’ to ridgelineCreated on
7/22/19 6:40 PM
>Max. height from lowest finished grade 22.4’
>Building sz. 4560 sf
>No requirement to grade down to lower building height.
This project was approved with comparison to both 5329 Bayridge Rd.
and 5345 Bayridge Rd.
5329 BAYRIDGE RD. (directly adjacent – more centered location at T of
intersection. Exact same situation of easterly neighbor with small one story
home on lower lot due to topography)
> Restricted to 19.17’ from highest existing grade to ridgeline
> Max. height - 22.9’ from lowest finished grade (after grading down 3’)
> Building size restricted to 4324 sf
>Required to grade down to lower building height and reduce size to
mitigate bulk and mass concerns
5345 BAYRIDGE RD. (3 houses to west of 5325 Bayridge)
> Restricted to 18.75’ from highest existing grade to ridgeline
> Max. height - 22.42’ from lowest finished grade (after grading down 3’)
> Building sz. 4750 sf
> Required to grade down to lower building height to mitigate bulk and
mass concerns.
Thank you for your consideration in these matters very important to us,
Sincerely,
Frank and Susan Semelka
E-7
F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6