PC MINS 19761026M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
October 26, 1976
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairperson Shaw.
PRESENT: Blue (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Hughes, McTaggart, Rosen-
berg, Shaw
ABSENT: None
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Associate
Planner Gary Weber.
VARIANCE NO. 6 Mr. Weber reviewed the background of
30159 Avenida de Calma the request which was denied by the
Applicant/Appellant: William Planning Commission at its meeting of
Horowitz August 10. This decision was appealed
to the City Council; but because the
applicant has submitted revised plans,
the Council has referred the matter back to the Commission for review and
recommendation. He explained that the proposed deck has been reduced in
size. He said if the Commission recommends approval, they should make the
required findings. Staff recommendation is for denial based on lack of
proof of required findings.
The Commissioners questioned staff on procedure, and Director Hightower
explained that the Commission needs to determine whether the plan re-
vision changes its original decision on the pro3ect.
William Horowitz, the applicant, and R. Thomas Schorer, the designer,
presented slides of the project site and the surrounding area, pointing
out the small amount of usable yard area. Mr. Horowitz said the primary
aim is to have an ocean viewing area, since he has an ocean view, and
also that this proposal would improve the privacy situation for both
parties.
John Provensano, 7240 Crest, neighbor on the downslope side, gave the
background of the area from the time he purchased his home, and said this
proposal would infringe on his privacy; Mrs. Provensano concurred.
Mrs. Horowitz felt the addition would lessen the lack of privacy and in
response to the statement that the revision falls within one foot of being
eligible for a minor exception permit, she pointed out that they could get
more square footage under that type of permit.
Mr. Horowitz added that theirs was the only home in the area subject to
the lack of privacy due to the pedestrian traffic along the drainage ditch
because there was nothing between their home and this ditch.
Public participation was closed.
Differing opinions were expressed during Commission discussion with some
members feeling there was a hardship in that the four -foot strip was not
sufficient usable yard living area, in that there was noise and a lack of
privacy from having the public pass by; the unusual design and placement
of the house made these extraordinary circumstances; and the amended
proposal would improve the existing situation. Others felt they could
not really justify a hardship because even though there was almost no
usable rear yard, the house had been built with a private interior open
space area in the front.
Mr. Blue proposed a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, to
recommend to the City Council approval of Variance No. 6, which failed
by the following vote:
AYES: Blue, Rosenberger
NOES: Hughes, McTaggart, Shaw
ABSENT: None
Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Hughes, to
recommend to the City Council that the appeal be denied due to the in-
ability to meet required findings.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Shaw
NOES: Blue, Rosenberg
ABSENT: None
Mrs. Shaw explained that this recommendation would be passed on to the
City Council.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 16 Director Hightower explained that
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32744 this item had been continued to allow
Applicant: Porto Verde Apartments the applicant to supply additional
information and to prepare answers
to some of the questions and concerns
of the Commission. No material has been submitted to staff.
Don Davis, E. L. Pearson & Associates, said that a condominium is not a
type of building or dwelling and not a form of use, but is solely a legal
term describing ownership status. He said the benefits of this project
would be an increase in parking, private storage space, private open
space, recreational facilities, aesthetics/open space, and the tax bene-
fits. He responded to the issues raised at the meeting of the 28th of
September regarding the suitability of the project as condominiums,
limiting the economic range of housing, lack of separate shut -offs or
drain line cleanouts, the condition of the existing plumbing, no noise
testing, condominium conversions conforming to development standards,
deferred maintenance costs, possible financial burden on the City, and
when common facilities would be built. After his presentation, he sub-
mitted his eleven -page letter from which he just read.
The Commission felt that since they did not receive this material until
now, and due to the substantial amount of input, they would need time to
digest everything. They also felt they should have the City Attorney's
aid in evaluating some of the statements submitted, as the Commission
was not familiar with the regulations of the Real Estate Commissioner,
for example.
On motion by Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried,
this item was continued until it has been reviewed by the City Attorney
and the Commission has had a chance to review the submitted letter.
Mr. Davis asked that he be notified of the hearing date at the earliest
possible date.
Director Hightower said there were some other items the applicant has not
touched on, such as: refurbishing the other facilities, phasing of the
sales in three parts and what impacts that might have, and treatment of
the tenants.
RECESS
At 9:43 p.m. a brief recess was
called. The meeting reconvened at
9:49 p.m. with the same members
present.
The Commission decided to change the order of the agenda by making Code
Amendment No. 2, Grading, the last item. As there were no objections,
Mrs. Shaw so ordered.
COMMISSION REPORTS The Commission discussed the League
of California Cities' Conference
which was recently held in San Diego.
Mr. Hughes felt some of the sessions were quite informative, particularly
the one on the new coastal legislation. He said he preferred the workshop
type meetings rather than the general sessions. Mr. Blue felt the sessions
Planning Commission -2- 10/26/76
were less relevant to planning matters than in previous years. Mr.
McTaggart said he felt the same as Mr. Hughes and felt that he benefited.
Mrs. Shaw passed out a questionnaire on Abalone Cove Park from the County
Beach Department to the Commissioners and Staff, requesting that they
complete the form and either return them to her or mail them to the
Beach Department.
GRADING
Code Amendment #2
The Commission and Staff reviewed
what was discussed at the work ses-
sion for the benefit of Mr. Rosenberg
who was absent from that meeting.
There was discussion on 1) identification of the slope averaging formula,
2) rewriting the slope averaging to address square footage rather than
acreage, 3) the formula should reflect area to be graded rather than
area to remain natural, and 4) items a. and b. should be omitted from
Section 9667 D.2. and that item c. should remain but the wording should
change. Mr. Hughes passed out another set of grading calculations and
a suggested revised formula.
Another work session was scheduled for Thursday, October 28 at 7:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:20 p.m. it was moved, seconded
and carried to adjourn the meeting
to Noveinb e�r-9 , 1976.
oez��'Y
Planning Commission -3- 10/26/76