PC MINS 19770614M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
June 14, 1977
The meeting was called to order at 7:43 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman McTaggart.
PRESENT: Bacharach, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart
ABSENT: Blue
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Associate
Planner Gary Weber.
Mr. McTaggart announced that Mr. Blue was still absent due to illness.
MINUTES APPROVAL On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded
by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously
carried, the minutes of the meeting
of May 5, 1977, were approved as submitted.
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously
carried, the minutes of the meeting of May 19, 1977, were approved with
the following amendments: below crank downs, should read, "Section 9614,
B. 2, C. 1.......; Section 9614, B.AZI "..... and
45 -foot height or higher." dV�
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unanimously
carried, the minutes of the meeting of May 31, 1977, were approved with
the following amendments: page 1, delete title Antenna Ordinance", re-
place with "Revision to Development Code Re Antennas"; page 2, after para-
graph 3, add "Jeannette Mucha, 5538 Littlebow, spoke about safety aspects
of installing antennas"; page 2, paragraph 6, line 2, should read, "....
keeping the semi -rural....."; page 3, paragraph 12, should read "Peter Von
Hagen, 28410 Meadowmist....."; page 4, paragraph 3, should read, "Mr.
Hanlon said the Homeowners Coalition has had....."; page 4, paragraph 10,
should read, ".....for three years and has encouraged members of his Asso-
ciation to go across the street and look at their own home."; page 4,
paragraph 15, should read, ".....he was a licensed amateur operator....."
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously
carried, the minutes of the meeting of May 24, 1977, were approved with
the following amendments: page 3, paragraph 6, should read, "Dick Ohle-
macher, property owner on Sea Raven, wanted to be able....."; page 3,
paragraph 8, should read, "Mr. Art Maier, president of the Palos Verdes
South Homeowners Association, said....."; page 6, paragraph 8, should
read, "the work session` ocean field trip for the purpose of reviewing
the coastal bluffs 'on... ..I
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unanimously
carried, the -minutes of the meeting of June 9, 1977, were approved as
submitted.
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 4 Director Hightower discussed a few
Miscellaneous Text Revisions of the revisions from the last work
session (as shown in the staff re-
port). Re #2, which pertains to
Special Animal Permits, she said presently if there is opposition it
automatically goes to the Planning Commission, and there is nothing which
states that the reason for opposition must be valid. Staff recommends a
staff decision be made and then allow for an appeal period as with other
applications. She said one of the things this would do is relieve the
present Commission work load.
Re #4, which pertains to allowing pool equipment in the setbacks, she
pointed out that staff would not be working on the noise standards for
some time.
Re #5, which pertains to chimney heights, she said staff felt that a chim-
ney was not a substantial view blockage. She felt this restriction would
require nearly everyone building a chimney to come before the Commission.
Re #6, which pertains to fences and walls in front and street side set-
backs, staff recommends leaving the code at 42 inches in the front yard
and changing the restrictions for side yard setbacks if desired.
Re #7, pertaining to parking, she said the provision they talked about
added not only night-time/day-time use, but specific days of use.
Re #9, re the initial 40 -day time period for variances, she said they were
trying to eliminate this as it does not exist for any other application
and, if kept, variances would have scheduling priority over=all other
applications.
She also recommended two additions re administrative interpretation of
boundaries and open space, as listed in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened, and as no one wished to speak, Mr. McTaggart
closed the public hearing and opened discussion among the Commissioners.
Re #2, Mr. Hughes felt some of the -things should be removed from the Com-
mission agendas and that staff should make the -decision on these permits.
Mr. McTaggart asked if there would be a fee for the appeal, and Director
Hightower said she felt the initial fee includes this at present because
all of the special animal permits except one have come before the Commis-
sion, and pointed out that in the past, it has always been the applicant
who bears the cost. She said she would recommend doing it as a minor
exception permit.
The Commission reached a consensus to follow staff's recommendation on
#2, #3, and #4.
Re #5, Mr. McTaggart explained that a chimney is not a height problem
unless it is part of a height variation. Whatever the County requirement
was at a 16 -foot height or a 30 -foot height could be approved by staff.
The Commission reached a consensus on this.
ReOX�6, Mr. McTaggart felt there should be more flexibility and that per-
haps it should be determined by the distance from the property line on a
sliding scale.
Director Hightower pointed out that fences do not require permits and that
the simpler the ordinance, the better, and said the County had permitted
fences 6 feet high on the street side, but not within the front setback.
She suggested if they wished to spend more time on this issue, that they
leave it as is and work on it some other time.
Mrs. Bacharach moved to table this item to the end of the meeting and
handle the other public hearings first. The motion died for lack of a
second.
It was decided to omit the subject of increasing the -height -of fences
within the setback.
The Commission reached a consensus (3-1) to eliminate the first 40 -day -
time period (scheduling of public hearing) for variances.
The Commission also reached a consensus on the two additions recommended
in the staff report re page 101, 9832, paragraph 4 and page 39, 9411 A.
Mr. Rosenberg moved, seconded by Mr. Hughes, that the revisions and those
changes made this evening be incorporated into the Code text revisions,
to be presented for final review at the next meeting.
Director Hightower suggested that the Resolution be passed and that
Exhibit "A" would be included with the minutes of the meeting for approval
at the next meeting.
The above motion was withdrawn.
P.C. MINUTES -2- 6/14/77
r
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried,
Resolution No. 77-11 (P.C.) was adopted, approving Code Amendment No. 4.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32991 Mr. Weber responded to the Commission
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 concerns at the last meeting. Re road
Palos Verdes Drive South & East design, because fhe City will require
Applicant: Western America Dev. Co. full street improvements, it is not
Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties appropriate to schedule a meeting for
the Traffic Committee to review this
tract until after the Street Standards
Study and revised street design. Re the ownership pattern, a Certificate
of Compliance indicates 5 legal parcels. Re a sectional analysis of the
tract, staff divided the site into the three sections, as suggested by the
Commission. He discussed the boundaries of the three sections and the
breakdown of various factors, as shown in the chart in the staff report.
Although staff doubted the legality of requiring three separate tract maps,
there might be logic to a separate homeowners association .for each area.
He discussed the maintenance costs of common open space per homeowner -in
each area if done separately. Staff felt that treating the site as three
separate areas would preclude an overall residential planned development
concept. Re archaeology, he said of the three sites identified in the EIR,
two are located in areas of potential development. Based on the approaches
suggested by various archaeologists and professional organizations, staff
recommended two conditions of approval, as listed in the staff report. He
explained three staff concerns re the overlay control districts, as listed
in the staff report. Staff recommends that the Commission reach a con-
sensus on the major issues.
The public hearing was opened.
Don Dawson, South Bay Engineering, said they were now proposing 57 units.
Re archaeological sites, he said they will identify these areas on paper
and are proposing a two-year holding period.
Russ McGuire, South Bay Engineering, discussed the effect different grad-
ing and slope of the streets would have on each of the three areas within
the tract, as requested by the Commission at its last meeting. Also, as
requested, they had moved the entry gate up, provided a turn -around area,
and double -gated the entry with two separate activators. He said there
is only one gate and it could be deleted from the plan. He said they
have extended the left turn pocket to include a left turn accelerator lane.
He further said there are left turn lanes both in and out of the access
point. Re the three homes off one driveway, he felt it was the best con-
figuration and point of access, and showed alternatives.
Joe Dorian, 2726 San Ramon Drive, said it was already highly dangerous to
make a right turn on to Palos Verdes Drive East from 25th Street, and that
the increased population would worsen the condition.
Mr. Rosenberg agreed, saying that it was a 150 -degree turn which must be
made at 15 miles per hour, and he felt this should be sent to the Traffic
Committee and that perhaps the speed limit should be changed.
Director Hightower said that intersection will be part of the Street Stan-
dards Study.
Mrs. McSherry, 2714 San Ramon Drive, had concerns and questions as follows:
1) landslide ---asked for opinion of liability responsibility; 2) view ---
asked if view obstruction could be avoided; 3) traffic ---asked where
daily trips, as noted in the EIR, will occur and if the additional traffic
from the proposed development near the -radar site had been considered; 4)
animal control ---asked if there was some way the movement of field mice,
snakes, and skunks can be diverted away from San Ramon.
As there were no other speakers, Mr. McTaggart continued the public hearing.
RECESS At 9:27 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
with the same members present.
Mr. McTaggart said the Commission could not give legal opinions on liability,
and that only the City Attorney could.
P.C. MINUTES -3- 6/14/77
In response to a question about the validity of the EIR due to the drastic
changes, Mr. McTaggart said the EIR was based on a 100 -unit subdivision,
which has been reduced to 57 units, and that the-EI.R is still valid since
the impacts have been reduced.
During a discussion of the CC&Rs, Mr. McTaggart said the City's only
interest is that there is no reduction in the maintenance fee. He said
his main concern was that the knowledge of the open space is presented to
the buyers.
The Commission felt that since the number of units was considerably less
now, it would be too expensive to split this up into three separate home-
owners associations. The Commission also was in favor of public roads
rather than private gated roads.
Mr. McTaggart felt for the short distances of 14% sloped roads, as des-
cribed by Mr. Dawson, he saw no benefit going below 14% and further in-
creasing the grading. There was a consensus among the Commissioners on
this point.
Re the access of the three houses on to the Drive, the Commission had -a
lengthy discussion, related to the conflict with the intent of the General
Plan, but decided that because this is a unique situation and appears to
be the only way for development, which would improve the existing drainage
problem, that it does meet the intent.
Mr. McTaggart wished to check with the Director of Public Works re street
standards pertaining to "E" Street.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously -
carried, this item was continued, and the applicant was requested to next
address the views of the project and the neighboring homes.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33034 Mr. TXTeber said the revised plans are
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 24 a response to the concerns expressed
End of Calle de Suenos at the last meeting. Re allowable
Applicant: Herbert Angel density, the applicant is now pro -
Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties posing 11 units instead of 14, with
the average lot size at 30,950 square
feet; change in the roadway design
calls for a private 38 -foot wide roadway, with a reduced length to about
700 feet; and the common area has been increased but the recreational
facilities have been eliminated. Mr. Weber said staff explored alternative
methods of providing through vehicular access to Hawthorne Boulevard-, Via
Rivera, and Via La Cresta, and reviewed the analysis, outlining both the
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. He felt alternative #2,
access to Via Rivera (as described in the staff report), appears to provide
the most feasible extension of Calle de Suenos of the three alternatives;
but that staff was not convinced that any through access is feasible in
terms of overall impact. Re Fire Department standards, he said the maximum
recommended cul-de-sac length is 700 feet and that there was no maximum
number of units recommended for cul-de-sacs unless it is located in a brush
area. He said there is no progress re an emergency access to the easement
offered by the developer. There is also no progress at this point re
pedestrian access, and staff feels as with the emergency access easement,
the developer has provided a method. He reviewed the geology, possible
view obstructions, archaeology, and he responded to the letter of objection
in which the following concerns were cited: significant traffic and safety
impact, project design, and EIR deficiencies. Staff recommends conceptual
approval be granted.
In response to a Commission question re maintenance and liability, Mr.
Weber said if the City accepts the easement, it would be the City's res-
ponsibility.
Herbert Angel, 4373 Dauntless, said they concur with the staff report and
have met with the staff and revised the map. He explained that the rec-
reational facilities were eliminated because the reduced number of resi-
dents do not make such use feasible, and that language will be included
in the CC&Rs providing an option to the homeowners association to con-
struct recreational facilities in the developable portion of the commonly -
owned land if they desire, subject to City approval.
P.C. MINUTES -4- 6/14/77
1
Barr Ruston, 30009 Avenida Elegante, discussed the road extension alterna-
tives, emergency and pedestrian access, and said there is no data to sup-
port the estimate of traffic vs. capacity of traffic on Crest Road. He
"recommended that the application be returned to staff for further study
and that the EIR be returned to the Environmental Committee for further
review and evaluation.
The public hearing was closed.
Re pedestrian access, Mr. Hughes said the City does have tentative approval
from one homeowner,
Mr. Rosenberg said he preferred alternative #2 from a safety standpoint
and from the Fire Department long range plans.
Mr. McTaggart wondered who would pay for the road extension, and felt the
extension would not reduce the traffic on Crest Road and might increase it.
He questioned the City not permitting anyone to build a house on that area
and then allowing a road to be built there.
Mr. Rosenberg suggested adjusting the lot lines so that if the City decides
to build the road, the option is available.
Director Hightower said under normal circumstances,, -the. City does not per-
mit building a road on slopes like this, only for driveways, if necessary.
Mrs. Bacharach wondered if all the residents of Calle de Suenos wished to
change their street to a through street. She said at this time she would
not agree to a street going through.
Mr. Hughes said a road cannot be built through an open space hazard zone.
He said as he understands the General Plan does not permit this.
There was a majority consensus for no road extension.
Mrs. Bacharach proposed being consistent with the archaeology standards
re the protection of sites. There was a consensus on this.
There was a consensus that there be a condition limiting the height of
structures to 16 feet to preserve the views of the above houses.
Director Hightower said they are limited to 16 feet unless the Commission
says otherwise, or unless a height variation is granted. She suggested
pointing out the lots of concern at the next meeting when reviewing the
resolution and conditions.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unanimously
carried, this item was continued until the resolution is prepared.
Mr. Ruston asked about notification of the residents along Crest Road, as
he mentioned at the last meeting.
Mr. McTaggart said that would be placing an undue burden on the applicant
who must pay for mailing the notices as well as look up the property owners.
RECESS At 11:40 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 11:50 p.m.
with the same members present.
VARIANCE NO. 14 Mr. Weber described the project site
30549 Oceanaire location and said the zoning is RS -2
Applicant: R. & D. Kuhr and Open Space Hazard. He explained
that approval for the structure was
granted by the Commission on February
24, 1976, which allowed for the grading, construction of a residence, rear
yard area, and driveway/turn-around. He said although various revisions
have been made to the original plan, the overall development concept re-
mains the same. One of the revisions allowed for the 3300 square foot
turn -around area to be increased in size by about 1400 square feet and its
shape changed to rectangular. He explained that the variance request was
for the construction of a 10 -foot high chain link fence which would sit -
atop a retaining wall up to 8 feet in height to allow for a tennis court.
P.C. MINTUES -5- 6/14/77
Mr. Weber discussed the project considerations and indicated on a drawing
the area which requires a variance. Staff recommendation is for denial
since all of the findings cannot be made.
The public hearing was opened.
John Halamka, attorney representing the applicants, said the Code speci-
fically states that a tennis court type fence may be permitted with a
variance, and that extraordinary circumstances are due to a utility ease-
ment which restricts the applicant from building on the southerly portion
of the lot and there is a rock vein on the northeast portion of the lot.
He said research indicated that there is a 12 -foot fence which is being
shared by two neighboring properties in another area; and the enjoyment
of recreational area is a property right. He said the applicant would be
landscaping the area and that the wire mesh fence would not interrupt
anyone's view.
The following people spoke in opposition of the request: Kurt Moebius
and Carol Moebius, 30544 Oceanaire; Frank Moore, 30556 Oceanaire; Patrick
Donegan, 30568 Oceanaire; and Judy Sipes, 30524 Oceanaire. The main con-
cerns were that the fence would present a view obstruction and would be
an eyesore. They also expressed concern about the safety aspect with the
possibility of tennis balls flying over the fence into the street, as the
tennis court is located in the front portion of the lot. They also pointed
out that the CC&Rs of the Del Cerro Homeowners Association do not permit
fencing above 6 feet.
Mr. Halamka said the fence would be a flat black rather than the normal
silver shiny chain link fence.
The public hearing was closed.
Mr. McTaggart asked how the lower part of the building, which is part of
the house, was built right on the property line, and said further that
the wall is 10 feet high and not a maximum of 8 feet. He said he would
like an opinion from the City Attorney re this matter.
Mr. Halamka said the structure was built as a retaining wall and that the
County approved the plans. He said it could be considered an outside
storage bin. He also said he has spoken with the City Attorney who said
the wall was permitted.
Director Hightower said the City Attorney did say the retaining wall could
stay, but that staff was not aware of the underground area within it.
Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion to table Variance No. 14 until such time
as the City Attorney can be consulted. This motion died for lack of a
second. The Commission further discussed the issues.
Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, denying Variance
No. 14 because the necessary findings cannot be made. In addition they
moved to refer the question -of the structure which would support the fence
and its legality within the Development Code to the City Attorney.
Mr. Rosenberg suggested that the necessary findings be spelled out in the
motion. The motion and second were withdrawn.
Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, denying Variance
No. 14 based on the fact that the necessary findings cannot be made, as
follows: 1) The Commission does not oppose tennis courts or the use of
turn -around driveways as tennis courts; however, the 10 -foot fence on top
of an 8 -foot barrier cannot be considered a requirement based on excep-
tional or extraordinary circumstances; and 2) The Commission finds that
an 18 -foot combination of retaining wall and fence is not required for
the preservation and enjoyment of a property right, as the normal tennis
court fencing is considered to be 12 feet.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart
NOES: None
ABSENT: Blue
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously
carried, the Commission requested to be forwarded to the City Attorney
P.C. MINUTES -6- 6/14/77
r
L -
for his review the question of the placement
related to the second retaining wall and the
side yard setback.
•
of the wall, particularly as
room that it forms within the
Mr. McTaggart advised the applicant of his right to appeal this decision
to the City Council within 10 days.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33358 Mr. Weber said this request was for a
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 25 22 -lot subdivision and construction
Palos Verdes Drive South & Seahill of 21 attached, 2 -story, multi -family
Applicant: Mercury Enterprises dwelling units, common open space,
Landowner: Western Brass Dev. Co. recreational facilities, and private
road. He described the site, its
location, General Plan designation,
zoning, and explained the condominium units would be clustered in groups
of 4, /6, and 11. He said the access would be provided by a private drive
and the commonly -owned lot would provide landscaping, pool, jacuzzi and
two lighted tennis courts. He discussed the various standards related to
the project, as shown in the table in the staff report. He said two areas
of conflict were allowable density, 21 proposed, staff analysis indicated
only 20 would be allowed; and setback requirements, structure on lot 21
and portion of the over 6 -foot tennis court fence on the southerly property
line are encroaching into required setbacks. He discussed the access and
roads and expressed concerns re their design, as listed in the staff report.
He also discussed the grading and the overlay control districts and their
conflicts as listed in the staff report.
Corwin Eberting, architect, said they are proposing a low profile, low
density, high quality development, and described the units and clustering
effect. He said the detached garages will keep the profile low and allow
for a private courtyard between each garage and unit. He said it was de-
signed towards an energy preservation program. Re the problems, he said
they would conform to 20 units and will move the building to comply with
the setback requirement. He also said they would move the tennis court
to solve the problem of the fence and would have a planting strip between
the court and the property line. Re the driveway concern, he said they
will have garage door openers. He said they have attempted to follow the
natural slope as much as possible, except at Palos Verdes Drive. He said
one of the criteria was to get the best possible view.
Ron McAlpin, South Bay Engineering, submitted a letter from the Sanitation
District re sewers.
Mr. Hughes said almost anything built on the adjacent properties will pre-
clude any view.
Mr. McTaggart felt the location of the tennis court would limit the develop-
ment of the adjacent property.
Mr. Rosenberg said he agreed with the staff recommendations and would pre-
fer that the applicant come back with revisions to the plans.
John Richardson, 32653 Seagate, said it seems more practical to have the
exit on the Palos Verdes Drive side.
The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hughes expressed concerns about the appearance of the project from the
Drive and felt it would look like an alley. He said he did not consider
a long row of buildings to be clustering. He also felt perhaps there
should be some consideration to allow ingress from Palos Verdes Drive.
Mr. Rosenberg felt the Coastal Specific Plan area should have a more com-
prehensive plan. i
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unanimously
carried, this item was continued to the next meeting.
COMMISSION REPORTS
Mrs. Bacharach said she would appre-
ciate seeing the initials on the staff
reportlof the staff coordinator.
P.C. MINUTES -7- 1 6/14/77
Mr. Hughes suggested that someone from the staff or Commission prepare a
note to the Council re policy on the possible dedication of the land slide
area in Tract 32991. It was decided that he would make a verbal presenta-
tion, as Director Hightower said she could list this item on the agenda,
but did not have time to prepare a written report for the next council
meeting.
Mr. McTaggart asked what staff's recommendation would be, and Director
Hightower said she did not know at this time, and that most of it is an
area which is dangerous for access.
ADJOURNMENT At 1:55 a.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried to adjourn to Thursday,
June 16, 1977, at 7:30 p.m.
P.C. MINUTES -8- 6/14/77