PC MINS 19780822M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
August 22, 1978
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes.
PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes
ABSENT: None
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Assistant Plan-
ners Keith Turner and Charlie Jencks.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded
by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the minutes of the meeting of August 8,
1978, were approved with the following amendments: page 2, 5th complete
paragraph, line 1, should read "Joseph Metzger, Director of Maintenance,
5520..."; page 2, 6th complete paragraph, line 1, should read "Virginia
Wade director of the pre-school, said..."; page 3, 2nd complete paragraph,
line 1, should read "Lester M. Barron, representing the prospective buyers,
909..."; and page 4, paragraph 12, line 4, should read "...as follows: A.l.
A lot..."
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6548 Mr. Jencks said at the last meeting the
Crestridge Rd. & Crenshaw Blvd. Commission tabled this item for the
Applicant: Palos Verdes Properties purpose of obtaining information rela-
tive to micro -wave radiation and pro-
posed land use/zoning compatibility.
He said information received from the County states that the use of property
adjacent to the facility should not suffer from any adverse effects. He
said that report indicated very low readings, which was confirmed last week
when staff from the City and County conducted a test on the site. Re land
use compatibility, he said staff has determined that a conditional use per-
mit could allow the proposed use or one similar to it in an Institutional
zone. Staff recommended conceptual approval of the map subject to the con-
ditions listed in the August 22 staff report.
Dr. Brown asked if the City Attorney had been asked if the type of ownership
as was proposed was common practice, i.e. purchasing two lots and construct-
ing the project on one lot at a time.
Director Hightower said that was not a legal issue at this time, as the
request was only for approval of a parcel map. She said no one has control
over who purchases the parcels.
Mike Kochan, assistant general manager for Palos Verdes Properties, 811
Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, reviewed the conditions. Re condi-
tion #1, he said they wish to keep the two lots separate for financing pur-
poses, but that they would agree to a flag lot. Re condition #2, they would
request that a time limit of two years after recording the final map be
given for removal of the existing structure. Re condition #3, if the limit
line was between the 35 percent slope and the buildable area, they had no
ob3ection.
Mr. McTaggart felt the structure was a hazard and should be removed as soon
as possible.
Lester M. Barron, representing the prospective buyers, 909 Lucile Avenue,
Los Angeles 90026, said Josephine Seegal, Licensing Supervisor for the
Department of Social Services (620-4375), would verify to the City that
institutions for aging persons and residents halls for senior citizens are
one and the same.
Mr. McTaggart said although he was not satisfied with the radiation report,
he felt it was an issue to be handled at the conditional use permit phase.
He felt the applicants have been sufficiently warned of the potential prob-
lem. Re the testing, he said the instrument must be transmitting, not just
turned on, in order to get a reading. Re removal of the structure, he felt
it should be a condition of the lot split, whether or not construction took
place. Re the creation of lots 1 and 2, he felt a flag lot for commercial
purposes was not in the best interests of the City and, therefore, he would
be in favor of just one lot.
Mr. Hinchliffe said he was in general agreement with Mt. McTaggart's con-
cerns. He said although he understood the applicant's desire for two lots,
he felt it was poor planning on the part of the City. Re removal of the
structure, he agreed there should be a time limit.
Mrs. Bacharach felt because the Environmental Assessment identifies the
site as possible landslide area, there should be a condition on the map
requiring a geologic survey. She was opposed to the creation of two lots,
as she felt it was poor planning.
Dr. Brown said he was in favor of a single lot, as it was poor land use
planning to create a flag lot in an Institutional zone. He said he has re-
ceived several complaints about the structure and would recommend its re-
moval within six months.
Mr. Hughes said he would like the structure removed within a reasonable
period of time; and that he would feel uncomfortable with creating two lots,
as it was not in the best interests of the City.
Mrs. Bacharach pointed out there would be no way to tie removal of the
structure to the parcel map approval unless removal was required within one
year. I
Re Mrs. Bacharach's concern about a geologic survey, Mr. Hinchliffe said
that was a normal condition for development and was, therefore, not neces-
sary to be placed on the map.
Director Hightower recommended changing the wording of condition #1 to read
"combine lots 1 and 2" instead of "eliminate lot 2".
Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to approve
Tentative Parcel Map No. 6548 subject to the following conditions:
1. Revise the map to combine lots 1 and 2, since no over-riding
justification to retain them as separate lots can be found,
and it would be poor land use planning.
2. Removal of the existing structure on parcel number 1 prior
to approval of the final map.
3. A development limit line as determined by staff be estab-
lished on the final map.
Mr. Kochan asked if it would be possible to post a bond as a condition for
removal of the structure. He said that would allow them to fit demolition
of the structure with development of the property. He pointed out there
was a large savings of money if the same equipment was used -and it was done
at the same time.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the concern of the Commission was to have the
structure removed as soon as possible.
Mr. Kochan said they would be willing to place CC&Rs on the rear lot to
deed restrict it to the same type of use on both lots instead of having
lots 1 and 2 combined. He said in order for the applicant to obtain
financing for the first lot, it would be required that the second lot be
subordinated; and that the State requires that a lot must be a legal lot
in order to be subordinated.
Dr. Brown said there was without doubt a financial issue involved, but
that the Commission must determine what is best for the City.
Mrs. Bacharach pointed out the necessity for variance approvals in the
setback areas if the project were developed on two separate lots.
8/22/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
Paul Barron, representing the prospective buyers, said if the lots were not
separate, they would have to pay off the first loan before they could con-
tinue with phase 2 of the development. He felt the proposed project was
much less feasible if it was one lot, as they would have to develop the
project all at once. He said they would be willing to place any conditions
necessary to ensure that they would be developing both lots for the same
use.
Mr. McTaggart felt if two lots were approved, the developer would require
a variance for the project, and that the findings -would be impossible to
make because there would be a self-imposed hardship.
Mr. Hughes concurred adding that the self-imposed hardship would result from
the lots being separate at the request of the applicants.
Roll call vote on the -motion was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
VARIANCE NO. 28 Mr. Turner said this item was continued
9 Diamonte Lane at the June 27 meeting to determine (1)
Landowner: Dr. Paul Kaye whether or not the proposed fence met
the County requirements; (2) the lia-
bility to the City -of various warning
devices; and (3) a further delineation of the critical sight area. He said
the fence, as proposed, did not meet the County requirements, and the appli-
cant has redesigned the fence using a clear plastic substance in lieu of
the wrought iron. He said the City Attorney advised that caution signing
would be acceptable, but that there could be problems with other devices
which could allow the driver to place false security in the devices as a
means of protection or which could adversely affect the operation of the
vehicle. He said the critical sight area was established using the Highway
Safety Council figures. He said Building and Safety indicated that the use
of plastic on the fence woixld be acceptable if it is at least as shatter-
proof as tempered glass, and he recommended that the material used be a con-
dition of approval. Staff recommended approval of the variance subject to
the above condition and the conditions listed in the August 22 staff report.
Robert Mandell, attorney representing Dr. Kaye, said they were in agreement
with conditions 3 through 6 in the staff report and the condition re material
as recommended by Mr. Turner. Re condition #1, there are presently five
blocks on the fence, and there will be no cap. They did not wish to lower
the wall. Re condition #2, it would interfere with the placement of the
pool and change the backyard plan. He requested that the critical sight
line be moved a couple feet so that the pool can remain as planned.
Dr. Kaye said South Bay Engineering designed the wall and there would be a
wrought iron frame holding the plexiglass in place.
Walter BarnesAsaid the staff figure of 36 inches in height was determined
to make the corner safer, and he did not think there should be any variation
on the sight line. He requested a time limit be placed on the approval to
ensure the wall is completed, as the construction has been going on for
years. He felt the existing wall was dangerous_, and the lower the wall,
the safer it would be.
Merlene Kovacs4suggested that the earth be lowered one foot, as recommended
by staff. She said there have been accidents at that corner in the past.
Mr. Barnes said in reference to the pictures of the corner which the Commis-
sion was reviewing, that they were taken by someone standing up, not some-
one sitting in a car, and the vehicle in the photos is the City truck, which
is higher than the normal vehicle.
Mr. McTaggart suggested that condition #1 be changed to allow the block por-
tion of the wall to remain at 42 inches, and that the critical sight dis-
tance be established at 25 feet from the apex of the wall, as that corner
of the yard with the pool will require some privacy. He suggested the fol-
lowing changes to the other recommended conditions: Condition #2 should
8/22/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
read that no shrub, deck, or soil shall extend any higher than a line
drawn across the top of the wall in the critical sight area. 'Conditionl#3
be eliminated, as it is covered in condition #2. Condition #6 should in-
clude "clear plastic poly -carbonate material which has been approved by the
County."
Mrs. Bacharach agreed with the suggested changes.
Mr. Hinchliffe said testimony indicates that the corner is dangerous as it
stands. He felt the wall should be lowered; otherwise, he was in=agreement
with the suggested changes.
Mr. McTaggart pointed out that the 42 -inch -wall would offer more protection
by preventing a small child from climbing over.
Dr. Brown said he went around -that corner between 10 -15 -miles -per hour..
He said he was very concerned with the safety aspect and agreed with staff's
recommendation. He agreed, however, to the definition of the sight area,
as suggested by Mr. McTaggart.
Mr. Hughes said it was impossible to see over the wall in either of his two
cars. He agreed with the staff report except that the critical sight line
could be shortened to exclude the tip of the pool. He said he was concerned
in removal of the landscaping only in the critical sight area. He agreed to
combine conditions #2 and #3 and approved of the use of poly -carbonate. He
suggested taking the conditions in -order one at a time to reach a consensus.
On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried, with Mrs.
Bacharach and Mr. McTaggart dissenting, condition #1 was approved to read
as follows: "Lower block retaining wall to a maximum height of four (4)
blocks (approximately thirty-six (36) inches including cap block and mortar
spaces) within critical sight area, as defined by twenty-five (25) feet in
either direction from the center of the wall."
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously
carried, condition #2 was -approved to read as follows: "No shrub, deck or
soil shall be maintained at a height higher than a line drawn on top of the
wall within the critical sight distance, and that a deed restriction be
filed to that effect."
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried,
condition #3 was deleted, and conditions #4, 5 and 6 were accepted with
the change to the -6th condition requiring that the plastic be of a clear
poly -carbonate material which is approved by the County.
Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart to approve
Variance No. 28 subject to the conditions in the August 22 staff report,
as amended above, based on the following findings:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances due to the
configuration of the applicant's house and yard. The Code, by defi-
nition of front property lines, establishes the most usable outdoor
area as the front yard and applies the most restrictive standards
for setbacks to this area. The manner in which the house is situated
on the lot establishes this area as the only usable outdoor area,
save the driveway.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant because most lots
in this area are fairly flat, as is this one, or have flat yard
areas on which to install pools or similar outdoor uses. This lot
which possesses similarities in topography, intensity of development,
and general characteristics to surrounding lots is restricted with
setback standards which would not apply to the usable outdoor areas
of the other lots. Part of the hardship is caused by the requirement
of a five-foot fence to enclose the pool.
C. That this variance, as conditioned, would not be materially detri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements
in the area.
D. That the granting of this variance will not be contrary to the ob-
jectives of the General Plan.
8/22/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-
Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mrs. Bacharach said if all of the neighbors were concerned about that
corner, perhaps they could work together to make it a safer street.
Mr. Hughes advised of the fight to appeal this decision within fifteen
calendar days.
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 5 Mr. Hughes explained that this was a
Height Variation Revisions continued public hearing. There was
no additional staff input other than
what was received by the -Commission
in their agenda packets.
Elaine Fitz, 3200 La Rotonda, president of the Ocean Terraces Homeowners,
Association, made the following comments: re definition of view lot, it
should be specified from wh t point the measurement would be taken; ordi-
nance should address vertiarc as well as horizontal arc,' and the sky
is also part of a view (above Catalina Island, for example) and should be
looked at as part of the whole picture.
On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was continued.
The Commission scheduled a work session on Code Amendment No. 5 for Thursday,
September 7, 1978, at 7:30 p.m.
GRADING APPLICATION NO. 296 Mr. Jencks reviewed this request for
Sea Wolf & Palos Verdes Dr. South stockpiling approximately 10,000 cubic
Applicant: Palos Verdes Properties yards of fill for the purpose of a
future subdivision on the site. He
reviewed the Code criteria and said
staff was of the opinion that no physical problems were foreseen in recom-
mending approval of the application, although there were some problems en-
visioned which relate directly to the residential project proposed for the
site. Staff recommended approval subject to condition, as stated in the
staff report.
In response to a Commission question, Director Hightower explained that the
main purpose for requiring a bond was to ensure removal of the fill.
Mike Kochan, assistant general manager for Palos Verdes Properties, said
they had no problems with the staff report. He said they received the
geology report which indicates no sign of any landslides on the property.
He said the maximum height of the stockpile would be fifteen feet.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried,
Grading Application No. 296 was approved subject to the condition that a
bond or other acceptable guarantee be posted with the City to ensure that
the fill material is removed from the subject site within two years of the
date of this decision or upon demand by the City, unless approved to be
used for Tentative Tract No. 35040. If required to be removed from the
site, the applicant shall restore the site to its present topography.
GRADING APPLICATION NO. 297 Mr. Jencks explained this request was
Marne Dr. (Lot 42, Tract 25313) to permit construction of a split level
Applicant: Arik Abdalion residence on a downsloping lot. He
reviewed the access, average slope,
square footage of the lot, and referred
to the table for grading volume and coverage figures. He reviewed the Code
criteria and said staff was of the opinion that given the topography of the
site and the difficulty for adequate access created by the existing slopes,
any development would necessitate grading to some degree. He said the sub-
ject proposal minimizes the disturbance to the existing slope and leaves
the majority of the site in an undisturbed state. Staff recommended that
8/22/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-
a �r
the Commission approve the application without conditions. He said this
recommendation does not include the proposed bath house, and that hbindi-
cated this to the applicant.
Alan Sayre -Smith, architect, said the plans have been revised to eliminate
the bath house.
On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
Grading Application No. 297 was approved as recommended by staff.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 10721 Mrs. Bacharach noted that staff recom-
30936 & 30940 Cartier mended that this item be continued as
Landowner: -Joseph King it required further research. She felt
Applicant: So. Bay Engineering there should be a formal motion, since
it was listed on tonight's agenda.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
this item was continued until more input was received from the applicant.
COMMISSION REPORTS- Mr. Hughes asked the status of the
tennis court on Hawthorne Boulevard.
Director Hightower said this item was scheduled for the September 12 Planning
Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:20 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Thursday,
September 7, 1978, at 7:30 p.m.
8/22/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-