TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JULY 8, 2003

SUBJECT: HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT CASE NO.ZON2002-00099

ADDRESS: 2038 REDONDELA DRIVE

RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275

APPLICANT: MR. JOSEPH TOMICH

PHONE: 310-548-3405

LANDOWNER: SAME AS ABOVE

BEILIN YU, ASSISTANT PLANNER

REQUESTED ACTION: A REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 498 SQUARE FEET OF SECOND STORY ADDITIONS, AT A HEIGHT OF 22’, AS MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED GRADE ADJACENT TO THE LOWEST FOUNDATION (99.50’) TO THE HIGHEST RIDGE (121.50’), AND 21.7’, AS MEASURED FROM THE HIGHEST ELEVATION TO BE COVERED BY STRUCTURE (99.80’) TO THE HIGHEST RIDGE.

RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-___; APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS HEIGHT VARIATION CASE NO. ZON2003-00099.

REFERENCES:

ZONING: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – RS-4

LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

CODE SECTIONS: 17.02 and 17.48

GENERAL PLAN: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

TRAILS PLAN: N/A

SPECIFIC PLAN: N/A

CEQA: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1)

ACTION DEADLINE: JULY 22, 2003

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WITHIN 500’ RADIUS: NONE

BACKGROUND

On February 25, 2003, Height Variation Permit Case No. ZON2003-00099 was submitted to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for processing. The request is for the construction of 498 square feet of second-story additions located to the front of an existing 2,513 square foot two-story residence, and to construct a 28 square foot second story roof deck located on the east façade.

The application package was deemed incomplete due to insufficient information on the submitted plans on March 25, 2003. Upon the submittal of needed information on May 21, 2003, the application package was deemed complete on May 22, 2003. The required 30-day notice was sent to 90 property owners within the 500 foot radius on May 29, 2003 and published in the Peninsula News on May 31, 2003. During the thirty (30) day noticing period the City received no correspondences pertaining to the proposed project. Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, a decision must be made by July 22, 2003, which is sixty days from the date of completeness.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject property is located at 2038 Redondela Drive, located in the east portion of the City. The parcel is an irregular shaped interior lot with an overall lot area measuring 10,799 square feet. The parcel is zoned single-family residential, RS-4, and according to the applicant is currently improved with a two-story 2,023 square foot single-family residence, and a 490 square foot attached two-car garage, for an overall structure size of 2,513 square feet. There is currently a roof deck over the existing attached garage, and a balcony above a covered porch along the front façade of the existing residence. According to the building permit on file with the City the original structure was permitted at 2,267 square feet, however, the building permit does not indicate the square footage of the original garage.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant proposes to add approximately 45 square feet along the front façade, at the location of the existing second story balcony, and to add 453 square feet above the existing garage, at the location of the existing roof deck. The proposed additions would total 498 square feet and bring the total square footage of the dwelling to 3,011 square feet (including garage). The additions consist of a new family room above the garage, and a new master bathroom and a bathroom over the covered porch. The applicant is also proposing to construct a 28 square foot roof deck on the east side of the residence, accessed from the proposed living room.

The proposed family room addition is proposed at a height of 22.0’, as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade (99.50’) to the proposed ridge (121.50’), and 21.70’, as measured from the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure (99.80’) to the proposed ridge. The proposed bathroom additions are proposed at a height of 21.10’, as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade (99.50’) to the proposed ridge (120.60’), and 20.80’, as measured from the highest elevation of building pad covered by structure (99.80’) to the proposed ridge.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Guideline Section 15301.

Class 1 exempts from the preparation of an environmental document projects consisting of any alteration to the existing structure or topography that involves no significant expansion or use beyond that previously existing. Staff made this determination since the site is developed with a single-family residence and the proposed project consists of a minor alteration to the existing structure on the subject property, with no significant additional site disturbance.

CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS

The RS-4 zoning district permits additions up to 16 feet in height through a Site Plan Review application. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040 (C)(1) of the Municipal Code, a property owner may request approval of a Height Variation to exceed the height of 16 feet up to a maximum height of 26 feet. For lots with a building pad, such as the project site, the height is measured from the highest existing elevation of the existing pad covered by structure to the highest point of the structure. Since the proposed project exceeds the maximum height of 16 feet, it is subject to the Height Variation application process.

A Height Variation application must be reviewed by the Planning Commission or Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement depending on the location and square footage of the second story. If the proposed second story: 1) extends closer than 25 feet from the front or street-side property line; 2) exceeds 75% of the first story footprint area (residence and attached garage); 3) covers 60% or more of the existing garage footprint; or 4) has the potential to significantly impair a view as determined by the Director based on an initial site visit, the application must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission review is required for this application since the second story footprint exceeds seventy-five percent of the first story footprint area (including area of the attached garage), sixty percent or more of the existing garage is proposed to be covered by the second story addition, and since the proposed second story extends closer than twenty five feet from the front property line.

In considering a Height Variation application, Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e) requires that the Planning Commission make the nine findings in reference to the property and project under consideration (the City's Municipal Code language appears in boldface type, followed by Staff's analysis in normal type).

1. That the applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process established by the City.

The applicant completed the Early Neighborhood Consultation process by canvassing the property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and informing them of the proposed addition. The applicant is required under the Early Neighborhood Consultation process to obtain signatures of at least 60% of the property owners within a 500 foot radius or signatures of at least 25% of the property owners within 500 feet and at least 70% within 100 feet of the subject property. Staff reviewed the number of property owners that were consulted and found that the applicant complies with the early neighbor consultation because signatures of 20 of the 80 properties were obtained within the 500’ radius, which is 25%, and 13 of the 16 properties within the 100’ radius, which is 81%. Therefore, the applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process.

2. That the structure does not significantly impair a view from public property which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan as City designated viewing areas.

There are no public viewing areas identified in the City's General Plan within the vicinity of the subject property. In addition, the subject property is not located within the Coastal Specific Plan area. Therefore, Staff determined that the proposed structure will not significantly impair a view from a City designated viewing area.

3. That the proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory.

The subject property is not located on a ridge, which is defined as an elongated crest or linear series of crest of hills, bluffs or highlands. In addition, the subject property is not located on a promontory, which is defined as a prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides. Therefore, Staff determined that the proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory.

4. That the structure is designed in such a manner as to minimize impairment of a view.

Redondela Drive slopes up from east to west, as such the properties to the west of the subject property are at slightly higher elevations than the subject property. Most of the homes within the immediate vicinity located on Redondela Drive are single story structures. Since the building pads are graded so that they gradually increase in height from east to west, any views the residences may have of the Harbor, which is located to the southeast, are currently impaired by the homes at a slightly lower elevation.

Furthermore, the properties to the rear (south) of the subject property, on Avenida Aprenda, are located on higher elevations, however, these homes do not contain any views toward the north, in the direction of the subject property.

The proposed additions are proposed to the front of the residence and not higher than the existing ridgeline. And based on the discussion above, the residences in the immediate vicinity do not contain any views, therefore, the structure is designed in such a manner as to minimize impairment of a view, and this finding can be made.

5. That there is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application.

As indicated in Finding No. 4 above, the properties in the immediate vicinity do not contain any views because any views of the Harbor are either currently impaired by the homes at a slightly lower elevation or contain no views in the direction of the subject property. As such, Staff is of the opinion that there is no significant view impairment caused by the proposed project and this finding can be made.

6. That the proposed structure when considered exclusive of foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.

A "viewing area" as defined in the Section 17.02.040(A)(15) of the City's Municipal Code means that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways, garages or closets) or that area of a lot (excluding setback areas) where the owner and City determine the best and most important view exists. In structures, the finished floor elevation of any viewing area must be at or above existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest to said viewing area.

Additionally, according to the Development Code and the Height Variation Guidelines, a "viewing area" is established from the primary living spaces, such as the living room, dining room, kitchen or family room, located on the level nearest grade. The only exception is when a residence is designed so that the primary living spaces are contained within the upper level of the structure. Furthermore, a master bedroom is considered a "viewing area" only when it is the only view from a residence and is located on the same level as the primary living spaces.

As indicated in Finding No. 4 above, the residences in the immediate vicinity do not contain any views because any views of the Harbor are either currently impaired by the homes at a slightly lower elevation or contain no views in the direction of the subject property. As such, Staff determined that the proposed addition will not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.

7. That the proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements.

Staff reviewed the proposed addition for compliance with the RS-4 Residential Development Standards as shown in the table below.

 

Table 1

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD	REQUIREMENT	EXISTING	PROPOSED
Front Yard Setback	20’-0"	20’-0"	20’-0"
Rear Yard Setback	15’-0"	89’-0"	89’-0"
Side Yard Setback (East)	5’-0"	8’-0"	8’-0"
Side Yard Setback (West)	5’-0"	22’-0"	22’-0"
Max. Lot Coverage	50%	33.6%	31%
Building Height	16’	24.75’	24.75’ (existing to remain) and 22.0’ (proposed addition)

According to the above table, the existing structure and the proposed additions fully comply with the RS-4 development standards.

In regards to lot coverage, according to the applicant, the existing footprint is 1,885 square feet, which includes the front covered porch, and the garage footprint is 490 square feet. According to the submitted site plan, there is an existing 272 square foot covered patio in the rear yard. The existing driveway and outside parking area is 985 square feet, for an existing total lot coverage calculation of 3,632 square feet, which is 33.6% of the 10,799 square foot lot. The proposed project will not increase the existing lot coverage because the family room addition will be located entirely above the existing garage footprint and the bathroom additions will be located above the existing covered front porch. As part of the proposed project the applicant is proposing to remove the existing patio cover in the rear yard, which will decrease the total lot coverage to 3,360, which is 31% of the lot area. The maximum lot coverage allowed for properties located in the RS-4 zone is 50%, therefore the proposed structure will comply with the lot coverage requirement.

The proposed additions will be constructed at a maximum height of 22.0’ as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade, and could be allowed with the approval of the proposed Height Variation application.

8. That the proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character.

Staff analyzed the surrounding neighborhood to determine the compatibility of the proposed residence. In accordance with the Development Code’s definition of "neighborhood character", the analysis was based on the following criteria of review: the scale of the surrounding residences, architectural style, and front yard setbacks.

To determine whether or not the proposed addition is compatible with the existing neighborhood character, Staff compared the project to existing structures within the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised of the 10 closest properties, as shown in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2

PROPERTY ADDRESS	LOT SQ. FT.*	BUILDING SQ. FT. (garage included)	NO. OF STORIES
2024 Redondela Drive	10,385 sq. ft.	2,214 sq. ft.	1
2032 Redondela Drive	10,080 sq. ft.	2,310 sq ft.	1
2033 Redondela Drive	9,483 sq. ft.	2,353 sq. ft.	1
2044 Redondela Drive	10,668 sq. ft.	2,214 sq. ft.	1
2049 Redondela Drive	9,910 sq. ft.	2,310 sq. ft.	1
2052 Redondela Drive	11,117 sq. ft.	2,388 sq. ft.	1
2057 Redondela Drive	8,168 sq. ft.	2,796 sq. ft.	1
2021 Avenida Aprenda	7,179 sq. ft.	1,886 sq. ft.	1
2029 Avenida Aprenda	7,462 sq. ft.	2,104 sq. ft.	1
2037 Avenida Aprenda	7,205 sq. ft.	2,036 sq. ft.	1
Average	9,165.7 sq. ft.	2,261 sq. ft.	1
2038 Redondela Drive	10,799 sq. ft.	2,513 sq. ft. (existing w/garage)	2
		3,011 sq. ft. (proposed with garage)	2

* The lot sizes indicated in this column are based on information obtained from the Los Angles County Tax Roll (TRW database).

1) Scale of surrounding properties, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures.

According to the above table, the total structure sizes (including garage area) of the neighboring homes range from 1,886 square feet to 2,796 square feet, with an average size of 2,513 square feet for the ten (10) closest developed properties. As previously mentioned, the subject residence is currently 2,513 square feet (garage included). After the proposed addition is constructed, the total size of the structure (garage area included) will be 3,011 square feet. In relation to the neighboring properties, the subject residence will be approximately 750 square feet larger than the average structure size and will be 215 square foot larger than the largest home in the neighborhood (2057 Redondela Drive).

Although the final square footage for the proposed project will be larger than the average structure size within the immediate neighborhood, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed structure’s scale will still be compatible with the scale of the homes in the immediate neighborhood. The proposed family room addition is proposed to be setback 2’-6" from the front façade of the existing garage with a bay window, creating articulation and reducing the apparent bulk and mass, which integrates the proposed structure to the immediate neighborhood of single story residences.

The subject residence is currently the only two-story residence within the ten (10) closest homes. Staff is of the opinion that although the proposed additions will increase the appearance of the second story, the proposed additions are designed in a manner which will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Instead the proposed additions will result in a structure more compatible with the immediate neighborhood, since the additions will eliminate the large roof deck above the garage and the white railing around the second story, features that are not found in the immediate neighborhood, and add features such as the bay window and finish materials which are found in the neighborhood.

No accessory structures are proposed with this project, therefore this portion of this finding does not apply.

2) Architectural styles, including facade treatment, structure height, open space between structure, roof designs, the apparent bulk and mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials.

The subject property is located in a neighborhood comprised of other residences with the same architectural style as the existing residence. The surrounding homes consist mainly of stucco finish with wood siding. The roof material is mainly composition shingle or tile roof.

The existing structure has a stucco finish with wood trimmings and tile roof material. The applicant is proposing to match the existing roof material. According to the submitted elevation plans, the applicant is proposing to stucco the proposed structure including stucco trimming around the windows and new columns around the front porch. Since stucco and tile roof material are finished materials found in the immediate neighborhood, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed finish materials will be very consistent with the finish materials found in the surrounding residences, and this finding can be made.

3) Front yard setbacks

No portions of the proposed addition will project into the required 20 foot front yard setback and the proposed additions will not alter the appearance of the existing setback since the proposed additions are proposed to be located above the existing footprint. Therefore, the proposed structure meets this finding.

Based on the discussion above, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed structure will be compatible with the surrounding home in terms of scale, architectural style, and front yard setback, and this finding can be made.

9. That the proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the occupants of abutting residences.

The proposed additions will not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the property located to the west because the proposed window on the west elevation of the family room addition will be setback approximately 43’-2" from the west side property line. The proposed additions will not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the property located to the east because the new window proposed on the east elevation will be facing the front yard of the property to the east, where the driveway is located and which is not used as a gathering area. The proposed roof deck on the east elevation will also not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the occupants of the residence to the east because there is currently a roof deck above the garage. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed addition will not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy and this finding can be made.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

According to the noticing procedure stated in the Development Code for the Height Variation application, a public notice must be sent out to property owners within a five hundred (500) foot radius, as well as published in the Peninsula News, indicating the scope of the proposed project for at least thirty (30) days. On May 29, 2003 the City mailed out 90 notices (including the property owner). During the thirty day comment period, the Planning Department received no correspondences pertaining to the proposed project.

Pursuant to Section 17.48.030(D) of the City’s Development Code, in single-family residential districts, except for driveways, paved walkways, and parking areas, all of the required front setback areas shall be landscaped. In single-family residential districts, driveways, paved walkways and parking areas shall not cover more than fifty percent of the required 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. The front setback area is currently less than fifty percent landscaped, therefore not in compliance with the above mentioned code section. As part of this approval, Staff is recommending a condition that the front setback area be modified so that fifty percent of the area be landscaped. Staff has informed the applicant of the condition and the applicant is amenable to comply with such condition.

Pursuant to the Development Code, an addition of more than 120 square feet of habitable floor area or 120 square feet of development that may be considered a gathering and viewing area requires a foliage analysis to be conducted by Staff. As proposed, the project consists of a total of 498 square feet addition of habitable space, therefore a foliage analysis is required. Based on a site visit conducted by Staff, Staff concluded that there is no existing foliage on the subject property that exceeds 16’ in height and significantly impairs views from neighboring properties. Therefore, Staff finds that no foliage shall be removed under this application request.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the above analysis, Staff determined that the nine findings for granting a Height Variation can be made to allow the 498 square feet of second story additions to exceed the 16 foot height limit, and the construction of the 28 square foot roof deck located on the east elevation. The proposed second story addition will not significantly impair any protected view from the surrounding residences. Also, there will be no significant impact to the privacy of the adjacent properties, and the addition to the existing residence will be compatible with the structures in the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, Staff recommends adoption of P.C. Resolution No. 2003-__, conditionally approving Height Variation Permit Case No. ZON2003-00099.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration:

ATTACHMENTS

• Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2003-__
• Conditions of Approval
• Floor plan and Site Plan