PC MINS 19770111CS70)
M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commisison
Regular Adjourned Meeting
January 11, 1977
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairperson Shaw.
PRESENT: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw
ABSENT: None
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner
Gary Weber, and Assistant Planner Keith Turner.
MINUTES APPROVAL Mr. Blue proposed the following addi-
tion to page 3, finding #3, "There is
no adverse cumulative effect........"
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Blue, the minutes of the meeting
of December 28, 1976, were unanimously approved as amended above.
COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Blue mentioned the decision of the
6,6,,;4tt_kState5 Supreme Court concerning the
City of Arlington Heights,--ivii iii
-i-dws—i-n—py-o-v-Ld-Ln-q—,to-r—l-ow—ho,u-s-ing—unkt-s-. iota-" "_&Yt v
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 20 Mr. Weber said that, per the Commis -
GRADING NO. 111 sion's request at the last meeting, an
30804 Hawthorne Boulevard analysis of potential impacts was pre -
Applicant: William Roberts for pared, which specifically addresses
Salvation Army the items: fiscal, services (police
and fire, etc.), and schools. He ex-
plained the base factors used, reviewed
the tables and summaries included in the staff report. He said there will
be an impact to the taxpayers, primarily because the institution pays no
property taxes; however, the City will gain revenue through sales tax, etc.
The Police and Fire Departments have indicated no problem, and the School
District said that only Palos Verdes High School would be further impacted
by the project.
Re the Commission's request for a legal opinion, Director Hightower said
that the City Attorney agrees that this development was within the intent
of the zoning ordinance and that there is no question of the legality of
this proposal.
Mr. Rosenberg was concerned that the opinion was verbal and not written,
and Director Hightower explained that due to the many requests of the City
Attorney, there was no time to obtain a written response between meetings.
She felt unless it was a very complex issue, it was not fair to the appli-
cant to delay making a decision until a written response from the City
Attorney is received.
Mr. Rosenberg asked about the original use permit, and did not feel a
decision could be made unless the Commission knows what conditions, if
any, were placed on the original permit. He requested that Staff obtain
a copy of the Special Use Permit.
Director Hightower explained that the County issued a Special Use Permit
for an educational facility, but that although communication had -been re-
ceived a long time ago stating the existence of the permit, the City was
unable to obtain a copy of the actual document.
Mrs. Shaw felt the original conditions had no bearing on the present pro-
posal to construct housing units for the teaching staff, which the City
Attorney said is a legitimate use in an institutional zone.
The public hearing was declared re -opened.
Bill Roberts, representing the Salvation Army, discussed the chart sub-
mitted by the applicant and pointed out the monthly cost to the applicant
during these months of delay for cost increases, fees, and rentals.
Allen Songstad, attorney, 333 South Hope, Los Angeles, said that the
State has given tax exemptions to organizations that provide a service to
the community. He did not feel that whether or not the City should allow
tax exempt organizations within the boundaries was a proper consideration
of the Commission.
The only other person wishing to be heard was the r-es-ident-of 30515 Via
La Cresta (across the street from the site), who spoke in favor of the
project and discussed the many benefits the organization offers to the
community.
The public hearing was declared closed.
Mr. Blue felt the full impact of this project and all aspects of it should
be considered as part of the planning process.
Mr. Hughes said since the staff report indicates an insignificant impact
on the schools, since the grading and housing placement is satisfactory,
and since this proejct meets the Development Code, he had no objections.
Mr. Rosenberg said he felt uncomfortable not knowing the original condi-
tions, and felt perhaps single family housing units were restricted under
that permit.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that this is now under the City's purview, and
that any conditional use permit granted now would take precedence over
any previous action.
Mr. Blue felt this type of use may not be compatible and that there would
be fiscal and traffic impacts also.
Mrs. Shaw concurred with Mr. Hughes and pointed out that the -use exists
and the issue is whether or not to allow nine (9) residences to be con-
structed for the teaching staff. She felt the open space should be con-
sidered as an asset to the community.
Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to approve Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 20 based on the findings as listed in Resolution
No. 77-1, Sections 1-6, and subject to conditions 1-6 specified to become
Exhibit "A" of the resolution with the following condition to become #7:
"That approval of this conditional use permit is in no way intended to
conceptually or officially approve other activities proposed on the Sal-
vation Army's master plan, which was presented during public hearing."
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Shaw
NOES: Blue, Rosenberg
ABSENT: None
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, Grading Application
No. 111 was unanimously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21 Mr. Weber discussed the revisions
VARIANCE NO. 12 which include elimination of the 12 -
GRADING NO. 116 foot wall and creation of a 1�:1 slope
5640 West Crestridge Road with a three-foot wall instead, point -
Applicant: Otto Korver for Penin- ing out that this has resulted in the
sula Babtist Church reduction of seven parking spaces, but
that after re -striping and allowing
for compact cars, there is a loss of
only one space from the original staff report. He explained that two
design alternatives have been submitted and that staff has again reviewed
the topography maps and determined that they are accurate. Mr. Weber re-
viewed the analysis which shows there would not be any view obstruction by
P.C. MINUTES -2- 1/11/77
I
the main sanctuary, but that there was -some concern over -the tower, as
the highest portion of the tower (which is 67 feet high, measured from
the lowest point), not including the cross, would be level with the
lowest pad elevation in the homes above. Staff felt that although the
tower would not obstruct views, it would interupt views.
The public hearing was declared re -opened.
Wayne Frase, 28424 Quailhill Drive, said the proposed height of the sanc-
tuary was not excessive and that to lower the roof would create a hard-
ship.
Otto Korver, 1110 South Robinson Boulevard, Los Angeles, architect, dis-
cussed view lines and described the tower, giving measurements, etc.
Ed Pierce, 2121 Deladier, chairman of the building -committee, said the
committee has taken great care to avoid view obstruction, but that after
discussing the acoustical problems with other church leaders and profes-
sionals, there is a relationship between the height of the building and
the width and length of the building.
Clinton Robertson, 5623 Mistridge Drive, asked questions re the grading,
and the difference of height between the church and the lowest pad; Mr.
Weber replied 57 feet.
Marsha Graham, 5643 Mistridge Drive, said she has researched the General
Plan, the Development Code, the County Building Code, and the Civil Code
of the State of California, and she read what she considered to be rele-
vant sections. She requested a copy of the proposed plans, offering to
pay for them. Re signing, she felt that the sign definition could in-
clude the steeple and possibly the entire building, and suggested that
this issue be decided by the City Attorney.
Martin Garvey, 5649 Mistridge Drive, was concerned that the sanctuary
would block his view.
Barbara Horowitz, 30159 Avenida de Calma, asked the progress of the
variance review and revisions, and Director Hightower said the City Coun-
cil asked the City Attorney to report to them on the differences between
the different codes. She said this report has been submitted, but not
yet discussed by the Council.
Virgil Sorenson, 5677 Mistridge Drive, felt the steeple was not necessary,
as it served no purpose except as a decoration.
Public hearing was declared closed.
At 9:32 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 9:42 p.m.
with the same members present.
During discussion, the Commission expressed the following feelinqs: that
the parking arrangement, the setback encroachment, and the height of the
sanctuary were reasonable requests; that the sanctuary would not interfere
with any views, as it was substantially below the homes above, that acous-
tical consideration was important; and that it was a small portion of the
roof which would exceed the height limit. However, the Commission did
express concern over the height of the tower, with the exception of Mr.
McTaggart who did not feel the impact would be significant. It was sug-
gested that the tower be scaled down.
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously
carried, the Commission conceptually approved the parking arrangements
based on the findings as listed in the resolution.
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried,
the Commission conceptually approved the setback encroachment based on the
findings listed in the resolution.
P.C. MINUTES
-3-
1/11/77
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the roof height of
the sanctuary was conceptually approved as presented based on the follow-
ing findings: it will not interfere with the present view lines; the
area exceeding the height limit is minor in scope; and it is not in viola-
tion of the spirit of the intent of the ordinance.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw
NOES: Blue
ABSENT: None
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried,
the Commission requested the applicant to modify the height and horizontal
dimensions of the tower prior to final approval of the conditional use per-
mit, said reduction in height to be at least approximately ten (10) feet.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried,
Grading Applicati6n No; 116 was approved as revised.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried,
Conditional Use Permit No. 21 and Variance No. 12 were tabled until the
next regular meeting.
GRADING NOS. 106, 107, 108 Mr. Weber reviewed this item which
Via Campesina, Lots A, B, C was first heard at the meeting of
Applicant: Robert Hellweg November 23. He compared the original
and revised plans, explaining that the
yard area has been greatly reduced,
and that there are light wells (maximum 6-7 feet wide) to provide light
and air. He said in the front no walls exceed 42 inches, and in the rear
no walls exceed 8 feet in height, and that staff recommends approval of
the revised plAns.
Mr. Hellweg answered questions and said they now have decking in order to
provide outdoor living area.
The Commission discussed the extremely difficult lots, and felt that the
applicant made an excellent and reasonable attempt, and that this applica-
tion meets the criteria set up. They did express concern over future lots
of this type being created, but felt these are existing lots and the appli-
cant has made a great effort to fit homes on them.
Mr. Blue expressed concern over preserving the hillsides and felt the
Commission had to draw the line somewhere on allowing developments on
slopes as steep as these.
Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to approve Grad-
ing Applications 106, 107, and 108, based on the findings as listed in
the staff report under Code Criteria A-E.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw
NOES: Blue
ABSENT: None
VARIANCE NO. 5 Mr. Weber gave the background of the
GRADING NO. 22 request, which first came before the
7449 Via Lorado Commission on April 13, 1976. He des -
Applicant: William Hauf cribed the project and its location,
explaining that 870 of the lot falls
into the extreme slope category. He
said staff outlined its concerns to the applicant, recommending changes in
the garage and turn -around area, to minimize the rear outdoor living area,
and to solve the visual impacts of the retaining wall, but said the re7--
cently submitted revised plan actually included little revision. Staff
recommendation if for denial of the grading application for the reasons
listed in the staff report and denial of the variance based on the in-
ability to make the appropriate findings.
P.C. MINUTES -4- 1/11/77
The public hearing was declared re -opened.
William Hauf, applicant and landowner, gave a brief presentation, saying
that the rear area is little larger than light wells, permits access
around the house, and is at most eight feet wide. He discussed the re-
taining walls and the garage placement. He stated he tried to follow all
of staff's rules.
The public hearing was declared closed.
Director Hightower explained that the staff recommendations to the appli-
cant were not set out as concrete rules, but were suggestions based on
staff's experience.
Mr. Turner answered questions and discussed the proposed grading.
The Commission felt reversing the setbacks on a piece of property located
in the center of existing homes created an unusual hardship, and felt the
driveway follows the contours of the hill and there does need to be some
turning radius. However, they felt the retaining wall should be reduced
in height and softened to create a more natural appearance..
Mr. Blue felt the house was oversized and unsuitable for this site, and
that there were alternatives to this proposal.
Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to table Grading
Application No. 22 until such time as the applicant submits revised grad-
ing plans which specifically soften the appearance of the area along the
driveway and reduce -the eight -foot retaining wall.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw
NOES: Blue
ABSENT: None
Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to conceptually
approve Variance No. 5, to be considered at the next regular meeting,
based on the following findings:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
in that there is an extreme slope, this is a flag lot, and the orienta-
tion of the loti-w±th-a3�--� e-t-he-r—l-e-t-s-facing the other direction.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right of the applicant, in that all the other
properties face the ocean and that is a property right they are enjoy-
ing and that is being denied to the applicant.
C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental
in that to orient the house in the same direction will create a uni-
formity which will improve the conditions of the area in which the
property is located.
D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the ob-
3ectives of the General Plan.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw
NOES: Blue
ABSENT: None
RECESS At 11:32 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 11:38 p.m.
with the same members present
PARCEL MAP NO. 6862 Mr. Weber gave the location and project
29075 Palos Verdes Drive East description and discussed the access
Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Behrendt and the existing residential structure
P.C. MINUTES -5- 1/11/77
and associated facilities. He reviewed the evaluation of code standards
as listed in the staff report, and said there will be a sideyard setback
problem and explained the procedure for a minor exception permit. Another
issue was whether or not the access to the project is legal. Staff recom-
mendation is for conceptual approval subject to revision of the map to
reflect a 15 -foot access to Parcel 01 and approval of a minor exception
permit for a reduction in the required sideyard area.
Jack Behrendt, 29075 Palos Verdes Drive East, agreed to staff's recommen-
dations, and said they had no immediate plans for developing the parcels
any further.
Mr. Rosenberg expressed concern over the number of horses permitted on
the site and asked if, as a condition of approval, these parcels could
be excluded from the "Q" District. Director Hightower replied that this
could not be done through a parcel map, but would require a zone change.
Mr. Rosenberg further expressed concern because the adjacent lots were
still one -acre parcels.
The other Commissioners felt that the underlying zone permits two units
per acre, and this request is in conformance. They also pointed out that
the horse code already exists and that there are some safeguards in the
large animal ordinance.
Mr. Blue proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to grant conceptual
approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 6862, based on the findings and sub-
ject to the conditions contained in the staff report.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Shaw
NOES: Rosenberg
ABSENT: None
HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 41 Director Hightower said that the
27W2- San Ramon applicant has requested that this
Applicant: V. & R. Mandel item be continued to the next meeting
as he is unable to attend tonight's
meeting.
Gene --Doctor, 2700 San Ramon, who attended the meeting specifically for
this item, said he would be willing to wait until the next meeting to
speak.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried,
this item was continued to the next regular meeting.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31616 Mr. Weber described the request, ex -
Crest Road at Hiqhridge Road plaining the project and its location,
Applicant: Presley of So. Calif. the density, zoning, and lot size. He
said the average lot will be 23,000
square feet. He discussed the streets
and landscaping, and said the project considerations are for compliance
with the General Plan, the Development Code and the Zoning Map. He stated
a few lots do not meet the minimum 20,000 square foot requirement, but can
with ad3ustments to the lot lines. He discussed the overlay control dis-
tricts and the grading plan.
The public hearing was declared opened.
Clark Leonard, LANCO Land Consultants and Civil Engineers, gave a brief
presentation, saying they have kept the grading to a minimum, and showed
on the map how -they are lowering the highest parts of the existing hill.
Mr. Leonard answered questions of the Commission concerning drainage,
indicating locations on the map, and said a drainage plan would be sub-
mitted to the staff.
The Commission also expressed concern about the mail box locations, land
slides, hydrology, and additional grading to the lots after they are sold
to individual owners.
P.C. MINUTES -6- 1/11/77
The public hearing was declared continued to the next regular meeting.
STAFF REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Director Hightower distributed to the
Commissioners copied of the re -draft
grading section 9667 E. and F.
Mrs. Shaw said the next workshop
meeting would be Thursday, January 13,
at 7:30 p.m. instead of the following
week.
At 12:30 a.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried to adjourn the meeting to
Thursday, January 13, 1977, at 7:30
P.M.
P.C. MINUTES -7- 1/11/77