HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW ...

CITYOF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

STAFF

REPORT TO:

CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:

COMMUNITY

DATE:

FEBRUARY 22, 2011

SUBJECT:

HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2010-00310)

DEVELOPMEN~E90R

PROJECT ADDRESS:

73 HEADLAND DRIVE

APPLICANT:

DON W. THURSBY

LANDOWNER:

CHRIS & KIM ENGEN

UV

STAFF

L-~~T_H_0_M_A_S_G_U_I_D_E_P_A_G_E_8_2_3_/G_-_1~~--,COORDINATOR:

SO KIM, ASSISTANT PLANNER

lOY\.-

REQUESTED ACTION: ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE, CONDUCT 549YD' OF GRADING, CONSTRUCT A NEW 25.5' TALL 6,094FP TWO-STORY RESIDENCE, A 12' TALL 352FT' DETACHED POOL HOUSE AND A SWIMMING POOL TO A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73 HEADLAND DRIVE. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2011-_; THEREBY APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON201000310). REFERENCES: ZONING:

RS-2 & EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT

LAND USE:

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

CODE SECTIONS:

17.02,17.46,17.48,17.70,17.76,17.78,17.80,17.86 & 17.96

GENERAL PLAN:

RESIDENTIAL

TRAILS PLAN:

NONE

SPECIFIC PLAN:

NONE

CEQA:

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15303)

ACTION DEADLINE:

MARCH 18, 2011

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:

NONE

30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 I'LANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228/ BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISiON (310) 265-7800 I DEPT FAX (310) 544-5293 E-MAIL PLANNIN(;@RPVCClM/ WWWI'ALOSVERDESCOM/RPV

1

BACKGROUND On September 3, 2010, the applicant submitted a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application, requesting to demolish an existing single-story residence, conduct 549yd³ of grading and construct a new 25.5’ tall 6,094ft² two-story residence, a 12’ tall 352ft² detached pool house and a swimming pool at 73 Headland Drive. After completing an initial review of the application, Staff deemed the application incomplete on September 16, 2010 due to missing information. After subsequent additional letters, the applicant submitted the remaining information and Staff deemed the application complete on January 17, 2011. On January 17, 2011, notice of the pending application was sent to all property owners within 500’ of the subject site. Furthermore, the notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 20, 2011. Staff received two letters in support, eleven letters in opposition to the detached pool house and one letter from the applicant in response to one of the letters. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a 26,095ft² pad lot located on the north side of Headland Drive. Headland Drive is a private street whereby the street easement traverses the front yard of every property located on Headland Drive. Each property contains a 27’ wide street easement, as measured from the front property line. The subject property descends from Headland Drive to the building pad and descends again to the abutting residential properties to the west. The existing building pad is improved with a 2,790ft² single-story residence and an attached garage. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single-story residence and conduct grading to construct a new two-story residence in its place. The new residence is proposed with the following improvements: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

5,088ft² habitable area (3,994ft² 1st floor & 1,094ft² 2nd floor); 1,066ft² attached three-car garage; A swimming pool and spa to the rear; A 352ft² detached pool house to the rear; Three separate balconies to the rear, measuring a cumulative total of 50ft²; A covered porch and an outdoor barbeque to the rear of the residence; and, 549yd³ of grading.

The applicant is also proposing improvements to the front yard which include re-grading, resurfacing and slightly relocating the existing driveway and installing at-grade steps leading from the street (Headland Drive) to the house. Additionally, 549yd³ of grading is proposed, of which 450yd³ is to lower portions of the existing building pad level while the remaining is to regrade areas around the building pad area. The proposed height of the new two-story residence is 25.5’, as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade of the lowered building pad level. The proposed height of the detached pool house is 12’, as measured from the lowest existing grade

2

to the highest point of the structure. A summary of the critical project statistics is as follows: CRITERIA LOT SIZE BUILDING SIZE Setbacks FRONT (excluding 27’ street easement) SIDE (N)

REQUIRED 20,000ft²

6,446ft²

SIDE (S)

5'

REAR

15'

106’

40% 3

24% 2

16' max.

12.1’

23.75’

20' max.

13’

25.5’

POINT WHERE LOWEST FOUNDATION OR SLAB MEETS FINISHED GRADE, TO THE HIGHEST RIDGELINE.

18.5’ 12’ 15’ (to house) 3’ (to garage)

No change

20’ 16.5’ 5’ (to house) 10’ (to pool house) 73’ (to house) 34.3’ (to pool house) 40% 3

LOT COVERAGE ENCLOSED PARKING Building Height HIGHEST ELEVATION OF EXISTING BUILDING PAD COVERED BY STRUCTURE, TO HIGHEST RIDGELINE.

20’ 5'

EXISTING 26,095ft² (per survey) 2,790ft²

Table 1 PROPOSED

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Staff has reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Categorical Exemptions are projects, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and have been exempted from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15303 (Class 3 Exemption) allows the construction of one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. Upon completion of this review, it has been determined that this request for the construction of a new residence is categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). DISCUSSION Height Variation Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(B)(1) allows the construction of single-family residences on pad lots within the RS-2 zone that do not exceed 16’, as measured from pre-construction grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad covered by structure to the ridgeline; and 20’, as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the highest point of the structure. Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(B)(1) allows these heights to be increased to a maximum of 26’ with the approval of a Height Variation. Since the

3

subject property is considered a pad lot and the applicant is proposing to construct a new residence that exceeds 16’/20’ height envelope, a Height Variation is required. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(C)(1)(a), the Community Development Director is required to refer the Height Variation to the Planning Commission for review if the portion of a structure exceeding 16’ in height is being developed as part of a new single-family residence. Since the proposed project is a request to construct a new single-family residence, Planning Commission review is required. Municipal Code Section No. 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: i.

The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the city;

The City’s early neighbor consultation process requires the applicant to obtain and submit the signatures of property owners within a 500’ radius of the applicant’s property. The early neighbor consultation is deemed adequate only 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’) is provided, as well as proof of notification to the home owner’s association, if one exists. The applicant collected 29% of the landowner signatures within the 500’ radius and 85% within the 100’ radius. Additionally, the applicant submitted a copy of the letter he sent to the Headland Drive Homeowner’s Association. As such, the applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and this finding can be met. ii. The proposed 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 city-designated viewing areas; There is no public park or right-of-way within close proximity of the subject property. As such, this finding can be met. iii. The proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or a promontory; The Development Code defines a ridge and promontory as the following: “Ridge” means the elongated crest or a linear series of crests of hills, bluffs or highlands. “Promontory” means a prominent mass of land, large enough to support development, which overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides. The subject property is located within a fully developed single-family residential tract. The tract is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Development Code, and therefore this finding can be met. iv. The area of a proposed new structure that is above 16’ in height when considered exclusive of existing foliage does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.

4

The properties along Headland Drive have views in the northerly direction. Based on site visits to the area, the only property with a view that could be affected by the proposed project is 38 Headland Drive, which is located immediately across the street on the southerly side. However, based on Staff’s assessment, the only view that is being obstructed by the proposed project above 16’ is the sky, which is not considered a protected view by the City’s Development Code. Therefore, the proposed new structure above 16’ in height does not impair views from neighboring properties and this finding can be met. v. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is determined not to be significant, the proposed addition to an existing structure that is above 16’ in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view; As discussed in ‘Height Variation’ finding iv above, view impairment does not exist and this finding can be met. vi. 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 16’ 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 16’ in height; As discussed in ‘Height Variation’ findings iv and v above, view impairment does not exist and this finding can be met. vii. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements; As noted above, the proposed structure complies with zoning requirements, including but not limited to setbacks and open space restrictions, as well as any specific conditions associated with the pertinent tract approval. As such, this finding can be met. viii. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character; “Neighborhood character” is defined to consider the existing characteristics of an area, including: a) Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures; The average size of the surrounding residences on Headland Drive is 3,725ft² including the garage and any ancillary structures. The size range of the 20-closest homes is between 1,993ft² and 9,986ft², as shown in “Table 1” below. The proposed project measures 6,446ft² in total size, which is more than double the average, but smaller than the largest home in the neighborhood by 3,540ft². The largest home (15 Headland Drive) shown in Table 1 below was approved by the Planning Commission on October 13, 2009, allowing the demolition of an existing single-story home and construction of a new two-story home in its place. Similarly, the proposed project also involves the demolition of the existing one-story residence and construction of a new two-story residence in its place. The subject residence is also a downsloping lot, located on the same side of Headland Drive. Based on visual

5

analysis of the temporary silhouette outlining the proposed project on the subject site, the proposed project appears no wider or no more visible than the existing residence, with exception to the new second floor. However, since the new second floor is proposed at the center of the new building footprint and located even further from the front façade, Staff does not feel that the proposed project appears out of scale in the neighborhood.

Address 15 Headland 20 Headland 25 Headland 26 Headland 31 Headland 32 Headland 35 Headland 37 Headland 38 Headland 44 Headland 49 Headland 61 Headland 67 Headland 69 Headland 75 Headland 77 Headland 90 Headland 93 Headland 94 Headland 96 Headland Average 73 Headland (e) 73 Headland (n)

Table 1 No. of Stories

Lot Size

Structure Size

43,560 43,560 42,536 43,560 47,480 43,560 41,369 43,560 43,560 45,738 23,960 43,560 26,120 22,220 27,010 32,670 26,980 23,520 43,560 20,747 36,442

9,986 (PC approved on 10/13/09) 3,660 1,993 2,767 5,039 3,020 2,998 4,124 2,546 3,941 3,114 2,197 2,324 4,428 4,073 4,294 3,871 2,385 4,128 3,614 3,725

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1

26,095

2,790 6,446

1 2

b) Architectural styles, including façade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials; and The architectural styles of the neighboring homes vary, including California Ranch, Spanish Colonial and Mediterranean. The roof design of the neighboring homes is either hip or gable with clay tile or composition shingle material. The façade treatments for the neighboring homes are primarily stucco treatments with some that include wood accents. The proposed project is California Ranch architectural style, using a composite shingle gable roof, wood siding finish, natural rock accents, wooden balconies, wooden patio covers, and symmetrical windows and doors with a subtle entryway. The proposed architectural design and building materials are similar to the existing and neighboring homes.

6

Most of the homes in the neighborhood are one-story structures while there are a few (5 of 20) two-story structures with varying heights. The applicant is proposing a two-story structure, using multiple roof planes and a variety of setbacks all around the proposed new structure. Additionally, the applicant has voluntarily lowered the height by lowering the building pad to lessen the appearance of bulk or mass of the structure. Also, the applicant has located the entire second floor at the center of the building footprint which is setback significantly from all facades, appearing even less massive and bulky from the surrounding properties. Furthermore, the second floor is recessed 12.5’ from the south side, 7.5’ from the north side, 11.75’ from the rear and 11’ from the front façade of the first story footprint. The numerous articulations proposed through various design features of the new structure results in a project that does not appear bulky or massive. Although the resulting size of the proposed project is larger than the average, it is significantly smaller than the recently approved home at 15 Headland Drive and Staff feels that it does not appear to overwhelm the neighborhood in terms of apparent bulk and mass. c) Front, side and rear yard setbacks. The setbacks of other homes on neighboring properties vary heavily as evidenced in the aerial photos available at the City. The homes that have been remodeled or constructed in the recent years appear to have smaller setbacks than the originally constructed homes. The existing home currently has a non-conforming front yard setback of 18.5’. As part of the proposed project, the non-conforming 18.5’ front yard setback will be increased to the Code required 20’. By increasing the front yard setback, the entire structure shifts further away from the street, placing it lower on the lot. This creates a structure that is visibly less noticeable from Headland Drive and from the upsloping properties located on the opposite side of the street. Additionally, the north side setback will be increased by 4.5’ (12’ to 16.5’), while the south side and rear setback will be decreased by 10’ (15’ to 5’) and 33’ (106’ to 73’), respectively, to the primary residence. Although the existing residence has a 15’ side yard setback, the existing detached garage has a non-conforming side yard (south) setback of 3’. Both the new residence and new pool house are designed to meet the Code required setback of 5’. As such, it may appear that the south side yard setback is also increasing from the abutting neighbor’s perspective because the proposed primary residence and detached accessory structure will have larger side yard setbacks than the existing detached garage. Based on the discussion above, the proposed project is compatible in scale, architectural style and setbacks with the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, this finding can be met. ix. The proposed new structure that is above 16’ in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. No windows are proposed on both sides of the new second floor. Additionally, the proposed balconies are located approximately 40’ from each side property line with a view facing the rear of the property. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in any privacy impacts to the neighboring properties. As such, this finding can be met. Grading Permit – Major A Major Grading Permit is required for projects which result in excess of 50yd³ in any two-year period. Since the proposed project involves a total of 549yd³ of earth movement, a Major Grading Permit is required. A Major Grading application shall be assessed in light of the

7

following criteria (in bold type): 1) The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot; “Primary use” means the most important purpose for which a particular zoning district was established (RPVMC §17.96.2210). The subject lot is zoned single-family residential (RS-2). The purpose of the single-family residential district (RS) is to provide for individual homes on separate lots, each for the occupancy of one family, at various minimum lot sizes, to provide for a range of a yard and lot sizes which are based on the general plan of the city, and to provide for other uses that are associated and compatible with residential uses (RPVMC §17.02.010). The applicant is proposing to grade 549yd³, a majority of which is to lower the existing grade to minimize any view impacts to the neighboring properties. Staff feels that 549yd³ of grading is minimal and reasonable for a new 6,094ft² home, especially if it is inelevended to minimize view impacts. Therefore, Staff feels that the proposed grading is consiselevent with the permitted use of the subject lot and this criterion can be met. 2) The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views form the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure is lower than a structure that would have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing) grade; Excavating the existing building pad area results in a lowered structure height since it will be placed at a lower elevation. Additionally, the area underneath the new pool house is also proposed to be excavated and as a result will be placed lower than the existing grade. As a result, the height of both the main residential structure and the detached pool house will be lower than similar structures built at the same location if measured from existing (preconstruction) grade. Therefore, Staff feels that the proposed criterion can be met. 3) The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural; The proposed 450yd³ of the total 549yd³ of grading is to lower and level the existing building pad area. The building pad area is currently relatively flat and does not consist of any natural contours. The remaining 99yd³ of grading is to re-grade/relocate the existing driveway and level the rear patio area and does not involve the removal or creation of natural contours. Therefore, this criterion can be met. 4) The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography; As discussed in criterion #3, the proposed grading is to lower the existing building pad area, and to re-grade/relocate the existing driveway and the rear patio area. The proposed grading area does not consist of any natural topographic features. Additionally, the applicant is not proposing to disturb the existing slopes on site as part of this application. Therefore, this criterion can be met.

8

5) For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character; As discussed in ‘Height Variation’ finding vii, the proposed new residence is compatible with the neighborhood and this criterion cannot be met. 6) In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage an minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas; The proposed project is not part of a new residential tract. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. 7) The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside; This proposal does not include any grading for streets or other public improvements; therefore, this criterion does not apply. 8) The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation; There is no landscape or wildlife habitat existing on the proposed grading area. As such, this criterion can be met. 9) The grading conforms to the following standards: a) Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% shall be allowed on recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975, which are not currently zoned open space/hazard, if the Director or Planning Commission finds that such grading, as conditioned, will not threaeleven the public health, safety and welfare. No grading is proposed on slopes equal to or exceeding 35%. Therefore, the proposed grading conforms to this standard. b) No finished slopes greater than 35% shall be created, except at the point of vehicular access adjacent to driveways. No finished slopes greater than 35% are proposed. Therefore, the proposed grading conforms to this standard. c) Except for the excavation of a basement or cellar, a fill or cut shall not exceed a depth of 5’ at any point except where the Director or Planning Commission determines that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary. A 4.7’ maximum depth of cut/fill is proposed for the pending project. Therefore, the proposed grading conforms to this standard.

9

d) No fill or cut shall be permitted on a slope exceeding 50% gradient, unless the grading is on a 67% slope. No fill or cut is proposed on a slope exceeding 50% gradient. Therefore, the proposed grading conforms to this standard. e) Retaining walls. i) Unless located within the required front or streetside setback, one upslope retaining wall not to exceed 8’ in height may be used. Retaining walls located in the required front or streetside setback shall not exceed 3.5’ in height; One downsloping retaining wall up to 3.75’ in height is proposed around the new pool house and a retaining wall up to 5.5’ is proposed near the barbeque area in the rear yard. Therefore, the proposed retaining walls conform to this standard. ii) One downslope retaining wall not to exceed 3.5’ may be used; One 3.75’ tall downsloping wall is proposed around the new pool house area. Therefore, the proposed retaining wall does not conform to this standard. iii) On lots sloping with the street and other configurations not discussed above, one retaining wall not to exceed 3.5’ may be used on each side of the lot; No retaining walls equal to or taller than 3.5’ are proposed in the side yards. Therefore, the proposed project conforms to this standard. iv) Retaining walls may be allowed up to 5’ in height, adjacent to driveways, only if required for access or slope stabilization. There shall be no more than one upslope or one downslope retaining wall adjacent to driveways. No retaining walls are proposed adjacent to the driveway. Therefore, the proposed project conforms to this standard. v) Retaining walls which are an integral part of a structure may exceed 8’ in height. No retaining walls exceeding 8’ are proposed. Therefore, the proposed project conforms to this standard. f) Driveways i) Driveways which exceed 20% slope shall not be permitted except that one length, not at the point of access, of not more than 10 linear feet may have a slope of up to 22%; The proposed project does not involve driveways exceeding 20% slope. Therefore, the proposed grading conforms to this standard.

10

ii) Slopes not greater than 67% may be permitted adjacent to driveways. The proposed project does not involve the creation of slopes greater than 67% adjacent to driveways. Therefore, the proposed grading conforms to this standard. As evidenced in the discussion above, one of the specific criteria within criterion (9) cannot be met. Specifically, the one proposed 3.75’ high downsloping retaining wall around the new detached pool house is 0.25’ over the 3.5’ standard. According to Development Code Section 17.76.040(E)(10), the Planning Commission may grant a Grading Permit in excess of that permissible under subsection (E)(9) upon finding that: 10a. The criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) are satisfied; As described above, all other findings for the Grading Permit approval can be met. 10b. The approval is consiselevent with the purposes of the Grading Permit; The Development Code §17.76.040 describes the purpose of the Grading Permit as “permitting reasonable development of land, ensuring the maximum preservation of natural scenic character of the area consiselevent with reasonable economic use of such property, and ensuring that each project complies with all goals and policies of the General Plan”. The General Plan land use map allows for residential development and ancillary improvements on the subject lot. Staff believes that the minimal amount of grading and related 3.75’ tall retaining wall around the pool house area is consiselevent with the purposes of the Grading Permit because it allows reasonable development of the inelevended use of the property without adversely affecting surrounding properties, while consiselevent with the RS-2 zoning designation for the area. This retaining wall will only be visible from the subject property. Therefore, this finding can be met. 10c. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsiselevent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; and, The subject property is a pad lot with a descending slope to the rear, topographically similar to the neighboring properties located on the same side of Headland Drive. Therefore, it is common for these properties to have small retaining walls for ancillary structures or a modest rear yard area landscaped with garden walls and planters. Additionally, garden walls and planter walls measuring less than 3’ are allowed by right on any part of a property without City approval. As such, Staff feels that allowing the applicant to exceed the grading standard by 0.25’ is minimal and reasonable, especially if it does not create any visual impacts to the neighbors while allowing the applicants to construct a pool house. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed request will not constitute a grant of special privileges and this finding can be met. 10d. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property; Allowing the applicant to construct a retaining wall 0.25’ taller in height will not be detrimental to public safety nor to other properties since it cannot be seen or accessed by anyone except for the occupants. Therefore, Staff feels that there are no structural or

11

visible adverse impacts by granting a retaining wall height that is 0.25’ in excess of subsection (E)(9). Therefore, this finding can be met. 10e. Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given to only the applicant. Staff will prepare a notice of decision and distribute it to the applicant and adjacent property owners upon project approval. As such, this finding can be met. Site Plan Review The proposed detached pool house, swimming pool, spa and barbeque area can be allowed because they meet all City development guidelines, including, but not limited to the required standards for heights, setbacks and lot coverage. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Equestrian Overlay District City’s Code Section No. 17.46.060(A)(5) states, “For properties located within an equestrian overlay (Q) district that are 15,000ft² in area or larger, a minimum contiguous area, at least 800ft² in size, 12’ in width or depth, having a slope not exceeding 35% steepness and vehicular and/or equestrian trail access, may be voluntarily set aside to allow for the future keeping or maintaining of large domestic animals”. Although the applicant is not voluntarily setting aside such an area, after development of the lot pursuant to the proposed plans, there will be a vacant area in the rear yard which is larger than 800ft² in size and more than 12’ in both width and depth to accommodate any future keeping of large domestic animals. Foliage Analysis A foliage analysis conducted by Staff revealed no existing foliage that significantly impairs the protected view from any surrounding properties. Public Correspondence Staff received two letters in support, twelve letters of concern and one letter from the applicant in response to one of the letters of concern. The residents at (77 Headland Drive) submitted three letters with concerns related to the proximity of the new pool house to their property, view impairment caused by said pool house and additional view impairment that could be caused by planting future hedges along the shared property line. Seven of the twelve letters of concern are from surrounding neighbors opposing the construction of the new detached pool house in the rear yard because it impairs the view from the abutting property located at 77 Headland Drive (Wyman family). Two remaining letters raise concerns related to the drainage on site. The concerns raised in the opposition letters are addressed below. Proximity of the new pool house The City’s single-family residential guidelines require a minimum setback of 5’ from the side property lines. The existing detached garage currently has a non-conforming side yard setback of 3’. The applicant is proposing to demolish this non-conforming detached garage and

12

construct a new detached pool house, with an increased side yard setback of 10’, which is double the City required setback of 5’. Since the new detached pool house will have a larger setback than the existing detached garage, Staff does not feel that the proximity of the proposed new house to the abutting property line is an issue. View impairment caused by the new pool house Although the new pool house will have a larger setback than the existing garage, the new pool house is proposed lower on the property, thus becoming more visible from the Wyman’s living room and rear patio area. Based on a site visit to the Wyman’s property, Staff verified that the top 6” of the new pool house would impair a small portion of the Wymans’ city lights view. The City’s Development Code (RPVDC §17.48.050) allows detached accessory structures up to 12’ in height, as measured from the lowest preconstruction grade adjacent to the foundation wall to the ridge. Additionally, as discussed in Grading Permit finding No. 2, the applicant is proposing to excavate the area underneath the proposed pool house to place it lower than the existing grade to minimize the view impairment even further. As a result, the height of the pool house will be lower than if it was constructed at the same height at the same location at existing (preconstruction) grade. Therefore, there is no requirement that the pool house be lowered in height. Furthermore, even if the City had the discretion to lower the pool house, Staff believes that the minimal amount of view impairment is not significant since it only impairs a small strip of the City lights at the bottom of the Wyman’s view frame. Upon receiving a copy of Wyman’s letters of concern, the applicant submitted a letter in response. The applicant explains that he has met several times during the design phase to mitigate any impacts. As a result of these meetings, the applicant redesigned his project from a one-story structure to a two-story structure with a smaller footprint that was moved closer to the street than originally intended to eliminate any view impacts to the Wymans’ property. Additionally, upon unsuccessful attempts to find a more suitable location for the new pool house, the applicant decided to excavate underneath the new pool house to minimize view impacts to the Wymans even further. Constructing the pool house at the other side of the lot would require increased grading and relocating it higher up the lot would impair the Wyman’s view even further. Overall, the applicant feels that he has put in a lot of effort to address the Wymans’ concerns. Potential view impairment caused by future hedges The City’s Development Code [RPVDC §17.76.030C(1)(b)(ii)] allows hedges up to 16’ in height on any part of a lot (except front yard setback area), except as restricted by the view preservation/restoration provisions. View preservation/restoration provisions may restrict the hedge to below 16’ in height, only if the hedge is higher than the ridgeline of the structure on the lot on which the hedge is located. Since the applicant’s ridgeline will be higher than 16’, any hedges along the applicant’s side yard have a right to grow up to 16’ in height. One of the letters (dated December 9, 2010) submitted by the Wymans indicate that the applicant is planning to plant a 12’ tall hedge along the shared property line. This future hedge may impair the Wyman’s view since the Code allows a hedge or any other foliage at said location up to 16’ in height. The applicant has stated that he would work with the Wymans for an appropriate height of said hedge.

13

Drainage Typically, upon project approval, a drainage plan will be required for review during the plan check review process with the Building and Safety Division to ensure adverse impacts will not result from the proposed project. Specifically, a City Engineer will review the plan on behalf of the City to ensure that the project’s drainage system is sufficient to handle the runoff from the proposed lot development. CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, Staff is concluding that the proposed project meets all required findings and therefore recommends that the Planning Commission approve, with conditions, the proposed Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-00310). ALTERNATIVES The alternatives available for consideration by the Planning Commission include: 1. Identify any issues of concern and direct the applicant to re-design and resubmit the application and continue the item to a date certain; or, 2. Approve the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON201000310) and direct Staff to prepare a Planning Commission resolution for review at a future meeting. ATTACHMENTS • •

Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-__ Public Correspondence

14

P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2011A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW, FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE, CONDUCT 549YD³ OF GRADING, CONSTRUCT A NEW 25.5’ TALL 6,094FT² TWO-STORY RESIDENCE, A 12’ TALL 352FT² DETACHED POOL HOUSE AND A SWIMMING POOL TO A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73 HEADLAND DRIVE. WHEREAS, on September 3, 2010, the applicant (Don W. Thursby) submitted Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review applications, requesting to demolish an existing single-story residence, conduct 549yd³ of grading and construct a new 25.5’ tall 6,094ft² twostory residence, a 12’ tall 352ft² detached pool house and a swimming pool at 73 Headland Drive; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2010, staff deemed the proposed project incomplete based on missing information; and, WHEREAS, the applicant submitted additional information and staff deemed the project complete on January 17, 2011; and, WHEREAS, a notice was published on January 20, 2011, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; 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 Planning Commission found no evidence that the Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 22, 2011, 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: A Height Variation to allow the demolition of an existing single-story residence and the construction of a 25.5’ tall 6,094ft² two-story residence with 549yd³ of grading can be warranted because: A. The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the City by collecting 29% of the landowner signatures within the 500’ radius and 85% within the 100’ radius.

15

B. The proposed 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 city-designated viewing areas, since none exist in close proximity. C. The proposed new structure is located within a fully developed residential tract is not on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Development Code. D. The area of a proposed new structure that is above 16’ in height when considered exclusive of existing foliage does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. E. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. F. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements, including but not limited to setbacks and open space restrictions, as well as any specific conditions associated with the pertinent tract approval. G. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. Although the size of the proposed structure is double the average, but smaller than the largest home in the neighborhood, the resulting structure would not appear out of scale. The primary reason is because the building pad of the subject property is located lower than the street level and portions of the first floor would not be visible from Headland Drive. Additionally, the proposed project is designed with varying setbacks and roof planes, resulting in a project that does not appear bulky or massive. Furthermore, the architectural style, roof design, setbacks, height, open space, building materials and number of stories is consistent with what exists on neighboring properties. H. The proposed new structure that is above 16’ in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. More specifically, there are no windows proposed on both sides of the new second floor and the proposed balconies to the rear is approximately 40’ away from each side property line. Section 2: A Grading Permit to allow 549yd³ of grading to accommodate a new twostory residence can be warranted because: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The permitted primary use of the lot is to provide for an individual dwelling and the proposed grading quantity is for the construction of a new residence and improvements outside the building footprint. B. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. More specifically, the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure is lower than a structure that would have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing) grade.

16

C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. More specifically, the proposed grading area does not contain any natural contours. D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. More specifically, the proposed grading area does not contain any natural contours. E. The grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as described in Section 1G. F. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation as none exist on the subject property. G. The grading conforms to the following standards: i.

No grading is proposed on slopes equal to or exceeding 35%;

ii. No finished slopes greater than 35% are created; iii. No fill or cut exceeds a depth of 5’ at any point; iv. No fill or cut are on slopes exceeding 50%; v. No retaining walls exceed 3.5’ in height in the front or streetside setback; vi. No retaining walls are proposed adjacent to a driveway; and, vii. No retaining walls exceed 8’ in height. H. Constructing a downslope retaining wall in excess of the permissible 3.5’ is warranted. Specifically, the downslope retaining wall adjacent to the new detached pool house is proposed at 3.75’ in height. This deviation is warranted because: i.

The criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) of RPVMC §17.76.040(E) are satisfied.

ii. The approval is consistent with the purposes of the Grading Permit which is to “permit reasonable development of land, ensuring the maximum preservation of natural scenic character of the area consistent with reasonable economic use of such property, and ensuring that each project complies with all goals and policies of the General Plan”. More specifically, the proposed grading and related retaining walls allows for reasonable development of the intended use of the property without adversely affecting surrounding properties while consistent with the land use designation for the area. iii. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) of RPVMC §17.76.040(E) will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon

17

iv. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) of RPVMC §17.76.040(E) will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property because constructing a retaining wall 0.25’ taller in height cannot be seen or accessed by anyone except for the occupants. Section 3: A Site Plan Review for a detached pool house, swimming pool, spa and barbeque area can be warranted because it meets all City development guidelines, including heights, setbacks and lot coverage. Section 4: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, March 9, 2011. 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 PM on March 9, 2011. Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves, a Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review for the demolition of an existing residence, 549yd³ of grading and the construction of a new 25.5’ tall, 6,094ft² two-story residence, a 12’ tall 352ft² detached pool house, swimming pool and spa to property located at 73 Headland Drive (Case No. ZON201000310). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of February 2011, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT:

David L. Tomblin Chairman

Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director and Secretary of the Planning Commission

18

EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZON2010-00310 73 HEADLAND DRIVE General Conditions: 1.

Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.

2.

Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.

3.

Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.

4.

The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review.

5.

The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards.

6.

Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City’s Municipal Code.

7.

If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City’s Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Director.

8.

In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply.

9.

Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution.

19

10.

The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.

11.

Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition.

12.

All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.

13.

All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City’s Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City’s Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners.

Project Specific Conditions: 14.

This approval is for the following: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

5,088ft² habitable area (3,994ft² 1st floor & 1,094ft² 2nd floor); 1,066ft² attached three-car garage; A swimming pool and spa to the rear; A 352ft² detached pool house to the rear; Three separate balconies to the rear, measuring a cumulative total of 50ft²; A covered porch and an outdoor barbeque to the rear of the residence; and, 549yd³ of grading.

15.

The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 119.75’. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the Finished Floor Elevation at 96’.

16.

The overall height of the detached pool house shall not exceed 12’ in height, as measured from the lowest preconstruction grade adjacent to the foundation wall to the ridge

17.

The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 20’ front, 73’ (to house and 34.3’ to pool house) rear, 16.5’ north side and 5’ south side. BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.

20

18.

Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage.

19.

Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%.

20.

A minimum 3 enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway. Each required parking space being shall individually accessible and maintain minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9' in width and 20' in depth.

21.

Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located.

22.

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.

23.

Areas immediately outside of the rear property line (69 Headland Drive) shall be revegetated with similar type of groundcover as existing, if altered through the installation of a new fence along the rear property line.

P.C. Resolution No. 2011-__ Page 7 of 7

21

I had the pleasure of speaking with a neighbor, Mr. Randall, about the development of "Headland Drive" on many occasions before he passed away. He was a respected realtor who sold many of the first lots on Headland. He loved telling me how the name "Headland" was the perfect name for a street with unobstructed views of ocean, mountain and city from every lot and that the homes would retain their value because of the views. I also had many wonderful conversations with Mr. Freeland, original and only owner of 73 Headland. His house was one of the first built and on many occasions he would show me aerial photos of Headland with panoramic views and the beauty of its design. He walked Headland almost every day, enjoying the views and neighbors. The Engen's purchased 73 Headland for the same reason we all chose Headland ....unobstructed views, large flat lots surrounded by a beautiful private street. The Engens share and enjoy the same unobstructed view they are trying to block from the Wymans. The proposed pool house and 12 to 16 ft hedge will obstruct approximately 65% of unobstructed views the Wymans have enjoyed for the past 20 years. ] have lived on Headland for 17 years and did not have any view until 2002. 1restored my fully obstructed view through the RPV View Restoration program. Not a day has gone by that] haven't enjoyed the view.

Please support the Wymans in keeping the view they have treasured for the past 20 years by relocating or lowering the pool house and foliage. Sincerely, Christy Shahnazarian 6 Headland Drive 310-832-2523

22

To: Planning and Code Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275-5391 From: Mr. & Mrs. Ivan Tournat ph. 310/548-7163 34 Deerhill Drive Rolling Hills Estates, Ca 90274 Re: Case # ZON20 I0-0031 0; Proposed development at 73 Headland Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes; Ca. 90275 February 14,2011 Dear Ms. So Kim and Mr. Joel Rojas; City of Rancho Palos Verdes 34 Deerhill Drive, Rolling Hills Estates ("Tournat Property"), resides downhill, north, of 67 and 69 Headland Drive. 73 Headland Drive is proposing to dispose of their rain water, landscape water and pool water onto the property of 69 Headland Drive and subsequently onto the very steep hillside of the Toumat Property. All water from 73 Headland has previously been purposely directed away from 69 Headland due to the flooding it causes. The Tournat Property strenuously object as this will cause additional flooding and landslides on the Toumat Property in even greater volume than have already occurred and continue to occur.

Prior Lawsuit: In the early 1980's, the original owner and developer of 69 Headland, Cysewski, diverted all water from his property onto the Toumat Property. This caused flooding and a landslide onto the Toumat Property. Legal action was filed against Cysewski and a monetary judgment for damages and a cease and desist order was rendered against Cysewski and in favor of the Toumat Property.

Continued Flooding and Landslides: 69 Headland was subsequently bought by Graner. On several occasions during heavy rains in the earl y 1990's more flooding and landslides occurred on the Toumat Property from the water that unnaturally flows from 67 and 69 Headland properties. Water runoff problems continue today and drainage capabilities are substantially beyond the capacity of the properties adjacent to and below 73 Headland Drive to accommodate more water runoff. It is our knowledge that prior owners of 73 Headland, as a result of the flooding that occurred several times in the early 1990's and in effort to solve the flooding, directed all their water away from 69 Headland Drive and the Toumat Property. i

iE

c

erely

S~b~i!t~ ) ~~'.'I' .~'ttL ~

/z--(

van and Jody oumat cc Rolling Hills Estates

\:J

/

~

t9-cI.-"v7'"-'v

I

23

12 Feb. 2011

To: Planning and Code Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif. 90275-5391 From: Mr. & Mrs. Ivan Tournat 34 Deerhill Dr. Rolling Hills Estates, CA. 90274 Subject: Proposed development at 73 Headland Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274

Tournats reside downhill North of 67 & 69 Headland Dr.over whose property the runoff water from tne proposed new home and swimming pool at 73 Headland Dr.would drain under the present plan. In the '90s heavy drainage from both 67 & 69 Headland Dr. flowed down our bank and washed out several cubic yards of mud onto our landscape. Repair of this mess was costly and time consuming for us. To allow another source of excess water runoff to damage our property is unacceptable.. Please do not approve such a source of drainage which would run across our private property. 7 J. Sincerely sUbm;tte/.",

.---------=-

~~~7jft.~ tJ--JL,c / Ivan & lody

7

nat

I

J

24

Page I of I

So Kim From:

Paul Tarr [[email protected]]

Sent:

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:50 AM

To:

[email protected]

Subject: Re: 73 Headland Drive

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: "Milia Tarr @ Cox.Net" <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:28: 12 -0800 To: Paul D Tarr, l1l<[email protected]> Subject: 73 Headland Drive Dear So, Over the years there have been several controversies over new construction taking another property owner's views. One or two have been

allowed that have really hurt an owner's property value. I understand you are reviewing the proposal submitted by 73 Headland Drive for construction of a pool house and planting of a privacy hedge. This would have a very negative impact on these neighbors. The Wymans have

lived here for many years and have always enjoyed sweeping views. The proposed improvements will distroy this benefit. I hope you take this loss impact into consideration when reviewing the proposal, and suggest placing the improvements on the other side of their yard where the structure will not block the views. I am confident you will visit the site and have an understanding of what's at stake. Should you allow the improvements to go in, it will set a president that will surely cause further negative improvements to be submitted for approval. Please consider these comments from this 43 year resident.

2/15/2011

25

Page 1 of 1

So Kim From:

Mary Fisher [[email protected]]

Sent:

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:37 AM

To:

[email protected]

Subject: Engan remodel

To whom it may concern, We are writing this email in regards to Mr. & Mrs. Engan's new home construction at 73 Headland Drive, RPV. Please be advised that we are in favor of the project and support their desire to construct their new home. Mr. and Mrs. Engan have shared their plans with us and have repeatedly asked if we had any concerns regarding the project. We feel that we would like the project to get started as soon as possible. Some of the clearance has been done and for three months the property has looked unsightly. Our home is directly behind 73 Headland and our driveway goes along the total north side of their property. It would be advantageous to us if the construction could get started so that the "dirty" work is finished before summer. The dust from grading can be horrific in summer months. Their new home project will definitely add value and beauty to our neighborhood. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected] Thank you, Mary and Steven Fisher 310.548.1194

2115/2011

26

So Kim From: Sent: To: Subject:

Greg Pfost [[email protected]] Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:01 AM 'So Kim' FW: 73 Headland Drive

50This is in regards to your project. Thanks. -Greg. Sincerely, Gregory Pfost, AICP Deputy Community Develapment Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5228 -----Original Message----From: david david [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 14, 201111:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: 73 Headland Drive David and Madhu Berman 44 Headland Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

February 13, 2011

Re: 73 Headland Dr.

Dear Sirs,

1

27

We are writing ta express our concerns about the proposed project at 73 Headland Drive. As the project currently is designed it appears that it will largely obliterate the view from the Wyman residence at 77 Headland Dr. One of the many benefits of living in RPV, and Headland Dr. in particular, is the spectacular view of the mountains, ocean, and city lights. By allowing this project to destroy the view from number 77, you will markedly decrease the value of the home at number 77 and set a precedent for the street that anyone can come and take away someone else's view. Please do not let this happen. Surely the design can be altered to allow the owners of number 73 to build a magnificent home that will preserve the view from number 77 and the property values of the Wymans and the rest of Headland Drive. Sincerely,

David Berman

Madhu Berman

Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahool Autos' Green Center.

2

28

Page I of2

So Kim From:

DEBORAH UBA [[email protected]

Sent:

Monday, February 14, 2011 5:46 PM

To:

[email protected]

Subject:

Fwd: 73 Headland Drive new structure

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status:

Red

February 11,

2011

Dear Building and Planning Commissioners: We have lived at 88 Headland Drive since 1995 and are writing in support of the Wyman's request for changes to the proposed construction plans for the property at 73 Headland. When we moved here 15 years ago, we were attracted to the large lots, flat road and beautiful views from ocean to harbor, city lights to snow covered mountains. Cathi Wyman and her children were the first to welcome us to the neighborhood. Unlike other areas of the Peninsula where neighbors don't even recognize each other, our street is truly a community. Headland Drive is a place where neighbors go for walks together on the street, stop by for coffee, and hold each other's keys for safekeeping. We worked together to clean up graffiti when a tagger spraypainted our entry sign and created a neighborhood alert when a drug dealer started to park on our street. While residents of Headland Drive value their views, their privacy, and their families, they also truly respect and care for each other. We hope you can work with the homebuyers at #73 to ensure long-range considerations are taken into account. We understand the excitement of planning a beautiful home, but also know it is important to consider that you are joining a community. We all want to preserve and share the views from our street and homes. It would be terrible to have ongoing tension and negative feelings between neighbors result in this "dream house" never developing the serenity and happiness of a home. The homebuyers at #73 should consider alternate plans which would allow for compromise, enabling existing residents to maintain their home values and views while providing the space aud entertainment areas they are seeking.

Sincerely,

2115/2011

29

Page 2 of2

Dr. Grant and Deborah Uba 88 Headland Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-831-8020

2/15/2011

30

Page I of I

So Kim From:

Joel Rojas [[email protected]]

Sent:

Monday, February 14, 2011 4:00 PM

To:

'Gordon Leon'

Cc:

[email protected]

Subject: RE 73 Headland Gordon This item will be before the PC next Tuesday. Other neighbors have raised the same concerns and so these issues are going to be addressed in the forth coming staff report. Please let Charlene know that she should raise her concerns to staff. Assistant Planner So Kim is the staff planner. Joel

From: Gordon Leon [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:02 AM To: Joel Rojas Subject: 73 Headland

Joel, I got a call from Charlene O'Neil regarding the development at 73 Headlands. Apparently, the proposed pool house and hedge significantly blocks the view from the Wyman's house. Are there any restrictions on hedge height in our code? Are they regulated similar to fence heights when they are on the property lines? Also, Charlene suggested that if the pool house was located on the other side of the property, then it would be out of the Wyman's viewing area. Was this explored with the applicant? thanks for your help,

Gordon Leon 310-463-9244

2/14/2011

31

Dear Ms. Kim, Mr. Rojas and the Planning Commissioners, I are writing in response to the February 8, 2011 communication from the Engens which Ms. Kim was kind enough to provide to me when I was at the Planning Department seeking further infonnation about the Engen pool house and the upcoming hearing process. After reading the Engen letter my husband and I were distressed by the implication in the letter that the Engens had made substantial changes in their home design directly in response to feedback or commentary from us. At NO time prior to the placement of the silhouette did we have any discussion with the Engens about the specifics of their plans. While it is true that I have been acquainted with Mrs. Engen for several years, the initial discussions with the Engens about their purchase and remodeling of the property next door were in very general tenns. Mrs. Engen expressed how happy they were to have finally purchased a home on Headland, and how glad she was that we were going to be neighbors. She frequently assured us that they would do nothing to impair our views, and I am sure I replied that we appreciated their sensitivity in that regard. At some point, the Engens did stop by our house with their plans, and mentioned how they had made efforts to minimize the encroachment of the back of their house into our viewing area. However, they never mentioned the plans for the pool house and surrounding high hedges. Perhaps we were naIve, but we really did not study the plans at that time. When the silhouette was constructed we were stunned to see a structure so close to our house, interrupting what is a very open and expansive feel to our property. I immediately called the Engens and asked them to come over to see the silhouette, thinking they could not possibly know how it looked from our home. 1 did inquire if the pool house could be moved further down the property line, so it would not be so intrusive. They replied that it could not be moved in that direction because of some kind of easement. I also inquired if they could relocate the pool house to the other side ofthe pool, and they said that would require them to build an expensive retaining wall. The one time I spoke with Mr. Engen and repeated his wife's words about not blocking our view, he replied "1 guess we spoke too soon." Following this my husband spoke with Mr. Engen to try to reach some compromise. That discussion included the possibility of flattening out the poolhouse roof, and keeping the foliage at a height that was not obstructive. After further consideration, and some further investigation into the hearing process, we decided we should seek some additional modification of the proposed construction through the public hearing process, so we wrote to the Planning Department. After reading the February 8 letter from the Engens, it appears that they are blaming us for modifications they were required to make to their dream house. Prior to reading this

32

letter we had absolutely no knowledge that they originally wanted a one story home set further back on the property. We certainly never discussed this with them or requested they make any changes in that regard. While I do not doubt their claim that this was their initial wish, I believe the changes they made came about in part due to lot constraints. Although lot sizes are large in this neighborhood, not all ofthe lot is buildable. Trying to fit a one story 6000 square foot house on this lot was probably not feasible. (In fact, since they have already indicated they cannot find another location for the 352 square foot pool house, it is very difficult to believe they could have found room for the square footage of the entire second story on this 101.) I am sure that the Planning Department also pointed out some neighborhood compatibility issues with respect to the ratio of structure to open space on the lot, and that a new structure should not dominate the side and rear yards of a lot. While the Engens may have made changes to their conceptual dream house based on the lot configuration, buildable area, and guidance from the planning department about neighborhood compatibility, those alterations were not made at our request. Their letter misleadingly suggests an early and extensive communication with us, and a response to our concerns, that never existed. Despite this, they seem to hold us somehow responsible for changes made, and perhaps that explains their unwillingness to reach a compromise on the pool house and foliage, necessitating a decision through the public hearing process. To summarize our concerns we want to make clear that we have no quarrel with the Engens building the 6000 square foot main house on this property as that house is currently designed. Our sole objection is to the height, size, configuration and placement of the pool house and the high hedges proposed to run from the main house to the pool house area. All of the houses on Headland have a very open aspect from the back (both inside and outside of the house). There is a sense of expansiveness and space not often found elsewhere on the Peninsula. This spacious feeling is a defining characteristic of this neighborhood. We do not segregate our properties with high hedges or build structures that crowd the neighbors. In reviewing the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook I noted that it begins with a summary of the characteristics that make this area so desirable including the rural and semi rural character and significant open space. The Handbook discusses that modernization of houses will occur, but that it should be done in a manner that recognizes and respects the unique features and characteristic of the neighborhoods. It mandates that the character of the particular neighborhood be preserved. We are requesting that the Neighborhood Compatibility guidelines be used to evaluate the 352 square foot accessory building which has been described as a pool house. The nature of that building is for periodic use presumably by guests invited to use the pool (we are assuming it could not be used as a separate permanent residence). We are seeking assistance from the Planning Commission in requiring the Engens to explore possibilities that would allow for the structure to be located elsewhere on their property

33

(including the possibility of reducing its footprint). If that is not feasible, adjusting the grading, roof pitch and height of the structure as well as the size to move it further from our property line and drop it from our direct line of sight. We also request that some understanding be reached with respect to the height ofthe hedges from the main house down the side of the property, so that they do not destroy the open aspect of our property and it's expansive view. Thank you for your consideration.

Cathi and Michael Wyman

34

When you think of Headland Drive, one thinks of big views, big lots and a flat, wonderfully walkable street. Well, my neighbors across the street, the Wymans, will still have the big lot and a beautiful street, but minus the views. Imagine that a pool house on the proposed property and tall hedges (apparently 12 feet in height) will eliminate more than 65% of their city, mountain and ocean/Santa Monica views from their living area (inside) and patio area. I was the listing agent on 73 Headland (subject property before the Planning Commission) and so I know the amazing vistas from the Engen's proposed structures. Their views are unobstructed! I am asking that you come visit the site and reconsider the placement of the pool house and the foliage. If the pool house and tall hedges were placed on the other side of the property it would impact no one. This proposed addition to the property not only takes views, but a huge loss in property values from the Wymans.

Sincerely,

Charlene O'Neil Re/Max Palos Verdes 38 Headland Drive, 310-548-3663

35

RECEIVED

2-9-11

FEB 14

2C~1

PLANNING, BUILDING AND

City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission 30940 Hawthorne blvd Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275-5391

CODE ENFORCEMENT

RE: Height Variation, Grading Permit & Site Plan Review Case No: ZON2010-00310 Location: 73 Headland Drive Applicant: Don W. Thursby Landowner: Chris & Kim Engren

Dear Planning Commission, We are homeowners on Headland Drive and have viewed the construction site at 73 Headland Drive and the building plans on file at the Community Development Department. It is our opinion the house plans are suited for the site and we welcome the new structure.

Unfortunately, we can not say the same about the detached pool house. It is an unnecessary structure and it will impede the view of the next door neighbor. An unnecessary structure obscuring a view is not unlike a tree obscuring a view. The city has a view ordinance for trees, they should uphold the view ordinance for unnecessary structures as well. We appreciate your consideration in this manner and suggest you disapprove the detached structure. Respectfully,

~cAThomas Sweida 35 Headland Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275

Cindy Koch 35 Headland Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275

RECEIVED fEB 11 2011 PlANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENl

36

Attn: Case# Location:

Planning Commission ZON2010-00310 73 Headland Drive, RPV, CA 90275

To whom it may concern: Historically, Headland Drive has always been known for its views, which is one of the main reasons we purchased our house in 1979. The original site plan for Headland drive was built to capture all views possible. These views add a tremendous value to the properties of this area. Headland Drive is a horseshoe street. The homes in the center are above the street elevation to capture the view. The homes on the outside ofthe horseshoe that involve views are built below the street elevation, to prevent any blockage of views for the homes on the inside circle. One of our concerns is that the proposed site will diminish the views of the adjoining neighbors, which will affect the value of the surrOlmding homes, and the beauty of this location. A bigger concern, that affects more than just the property value, involves the routing of the proposed site's water drainage. The water from the home, pool, and yard will be diverted into a drain directly in front of our house that was constructed to handle driveway run-off only. In 1993, a surplus of water coming from an adjacent property caused the drain to overflow. This abundance of water overwhelmed the drain causing water and mud damage to a property on Deerhill. This problem caused a lawsuit which lasted 10 years. The drain mentioned was never upgraded since the court only required the diversion to be corrected, not the drain.

Thank you for your consideration, and can be contacted ifthere are any questions regarding this issue. Sincerely,

Sharon and Kieran Graner 69 Headland Drive, RPV CA 90275 (310) 418-6803

37

RE; 73 HEADLAND DRIVE

Page 1 of 1

So Kim From:

Kathy Moine [[email protected]]

Sent:

Tuesday, February 08, 2011 8:45 PM

To:

[email protected]

Subject:

RE; 73 HEADLAND DRIVE

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status:

Red

Dear Ms. Kim, We would like to express our support on the height variation, grading permit and site plan (case No. Zon2010-00310) at 73 Headland Drive. We have spoken to the Engens and walked the site with the temporary frame structure in place. We believe it will have minimal Impact on the surrounding properties while significantly improving the quality of the neighborhood. As you already know, many of these homes have been built more than 50 years ago and are deficient in many ways, both aesthetically and structurally. A beautiful new home built on this lot would greatly enhance the neighborhood and possibly encourage new owners as well as existing owners to make other such needed improvements. Granting the Engens their minor height variation that would allow them to build their dream home would show that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes could take all these facts, and others, into consideration and render a fair and reasonable decision. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Charies and Kathy Moine 20 Headland Drive (310) 519-7079 email: [email protected]

2/9/2011

38

Page I 0[2

So Kim From:

Chris [[email protected]]

Sent:

Tuesday, February 08, 2011 5: 16

To:

So Kim

PM

Subject: 73 Headland Drive - Letter Response

Dear So, Attached is a letter we wrote in response to the Wyman's letter dated January 21, 2011. I hope that anyone that will be reading their letter will read ours too. Thank you. Chris and Kim Engen

To The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission: February 7, 2011 This letter is in response to a letter from Cathi and Mike Wyman dated January 21, 2011, in which they are objecting to "our pool house and high foliage" at the property. When we purchased the property at 73 Headland Drive, it had been our dream to build a four bedroom, one story house on the property. We have worked diligently with the RPV Planning Department Staff and our architect to try to build our dream home within the guidelines of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Our primary focus was to understand what the guidelines were, build the house we wanted to have and not build in a way that negatively impacted any of our neighbors. Since the house and lot we had purchased had not been changed much from its original condition in the 1950's, almost any change made at the property would have some effect on the neighborhood. My wife had known Cathi Wyman for over 15 years and after we purchased the property, Cathi expressed concerns about our new house blocking any of the view from their yard through ours. We met with Cathi at her house and yard and it soon became apparent if we were to make efforts to not affect the view from the side of their property through our property, we would have to alter our original design plans for our home. In deference to the Wyman's concerns and after extensive meetings with our architect and some input from RPV Planning Department staff, we saw a one-story house would have a much bigger impact on them than a two-story house because of the larger footprint of the one story layout.

2/8/2011

39

Page 2 of2

After the redesign, we met with Cathi several more times and spoke several times over the phone with her and her husband Mike. We tried to find another suitable place for the pool house but did not come up with a better solution. Finally, in my last conversation with Mike he had told me he was "OK with the positioning of the pool house and hoped we would work with them on the height of any plantings". I had told him we would. After reading their letter, we are sorry to learn they are still unhappy with what we are trying to do, especially after all of the effort we have put into respecting their concerns. For the record, these are things we have done specifically to try to minimize affecting the view from the Wyman's side of their property through our yard. 1. We changed from the one story house we wanted to a two-story house. 2. We spent thousands of extra dollars for a height variance. 3. We wanted to shift the house more north facing but did not because it would have impacted the Wymans'. 4. We wanted the front of the house to be set back at least another 10 feet farther from the street but did not because pushing the house back would have blocked more of their view. As a result, we have limitations on how we configure our driveway. As we write this letter we find ourselves asking the question, "Did we really have to try to be such good neighbors and make all of these changes?" We love our house design but definitely gave up some of our wish list in consideration of the Wymans. We are trying to build in a way that will benefit the neighborhood and surrounding home values. We thank you in advance for approval of our project. Thank you. Chris and Kim Engen

2/8/2011

40

Page 1 of 1

So Kim From:

Joel Rojas [email protected]]

Sent:

Friday, January 21,2011 3:39 PM

To:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject:

Re: Meeting of 2/22/11 - Headland Drive property - Please read!!Please visit!!

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status:

Red

Dear m/m Wyman Typically, commissioners make site visits associated with an application that is before them after they receive the staff report which contains staffs analysis and recommendation on the proposed project. The staff report for this item will be provided to the commissioners and to you (an interested party) on Thursday, Feb 17, If you have any questions about the process, please contact project planner So Kim, Sincerely, Joel Rojas Community Development Director Message----From: Sent 1/21/20113:24:35 PM To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Meeting of 2/22/1 1 - Headland Drive property - Please read!!Please visit!! Dear Mr. David Tomblin, Mr. Bill Getstner, Mr. Dave Emenhiser, Mr. Jim Knight, Mr. Gordon Leon, Mr. Jefferey Lewis and Mr. Paul Treault,

My name is Cathi Wyman and I live at 77 Headland Drive. I am writing this letter to voice my concerns about the new structure that is planning to be built at 73 Headland Drive. The planning commission meeting is set for February 22, 2011 and I want to invite each of you to please come and visit my home, so that you can get a very clear picture of the loss of view and property value that I will face. I have already written a letter and submitted pictures to Ms. Kim stating the various reasons why I am objecting to the Engen"s pool house and high foliage. Obviously, since we have lived here for close to 19 years, we have come to cherish our view. From all of the main rooms in our house, to the deck where we share summer meals, our view is part of our California life. Our street is probably the most prestigious on the East side of the hill, which is due to the large lot sizes and the views that the street offers. The street was designed to afford a view to each, and enjoy a feeling of openess and privacy. Besides the height issue, the Engen poolhouse, is so close to us, it feels like we could touch it. I urge you to please consider coming to visit my property, so you can make a fair and reasonable decision. I can be available ANYTIME. It would be best to come in daylight, but I will open our home at anytime that is convenient for you. I appreciate your consideration in this case and hope you will assist us in an appropriate resolution.

Cathi and Michael Wyman 310-833-6669 - Home 310-940-3929 - Cell [email protected]

2/8/2011

41

December 7, 2010

RECEIVED DEC 09 2010 'LANNING, BUILDING AND

CODE ENFORCEMENT

Dear Ms. Kim and Mr. Alvarez,

Thank you for taking the time to come to our home and evaluate our view issues in person. We have lived at 77 Headland Drive for over 18 years. During these years we have enjoyed a beautiful view from inside and outside of our home. As you enter the house you are immediately drawn to the view, and it was one of the main reasons we purchased our home in 1992. As you have seen, now that flags have been erected for the proposed pool house next door, much of our view will be obstructed. Headland Drive is 1\ unique and extremely desirable street due to the fact that plots are large and everyone has a view. The street was designed with that in mind. Both the inner circle, which is raised a bit higher, and the outer circle afford views from every home. With a loss of much of our view, we are very concerned that the value of our home will be in jeopardy. Obviously, the Engens have their rights too. We respect their desire to build a nice home and maintain privacy. However, we would hope as good neighbors it would not be at the expense of our view. We know they want a pool house and can't seem to relocate it. If they could move it to another area of the yard, or use of a flat roof, the impact on our view would be much less. My husband did speak with Chris Engen about the height of the foliage and he was agreeable to keep that at 12 feet. We are hoping that the planning commission can help us come to a compromise with our new neighbors. We would rather have changes made now, than have to burden the view restoration committee with similar issues in two years.

Thank you,

~ ~;t~chx.J W~ Cathi and Michael Wyman

42

43

"

()~

~~0

s:ai

~2

Oz 0 _ mz mGl z· -nco Os

C>

~

=

0 "->

0

~

0

m ~

P'l

;0

m 0'

44

O~

0

~~

:S::Ol m

mz

0_

~6

z· .,,~

mOl

Oz 0 _ mZ

-m

m (')

;0

I'V

= ~ = 0

0

......

rn n

Cl