PC MINS 19790508M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
May 8, 1979
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes.
PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes
ABSENT: None
Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber and Assistant Planner Karen
Heit.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
of April 10, 1979, were approved as
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded
by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously
carried, the minutes of the meeting
submitted.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and carried, with
Mr. Hughes abstaining, the minutes of the meeting of April 24, 1979, - were
approved with the following amendments: page 2, 9th complete paragraph,
line 4, should read "...send a formal letter..."; and page 3, paragraph 1,
line 3, should read "...Development, Dr. Brown felt..."
Mrs. Bacharach requested that the Commission receive copies of the letter
to the Homeowners Associations when it has been sent, re their initiating
a process for advising residents to check City codes as well as obtaining
approvals from the Association.
COMMUNICATIONS Charles Rennie, 26837 Grayslake, spoke
to the Commission about receiving
letters from the City concerning his
shed construction violating City codes because it is within the required
setback area. He said he purchased the property in 1964 and began con-
struction of the wall prior to the City's adoption of regulations and is
now in the process of completing the construction. He said the variance
procedure is lengthy and costly. He said his conversation with Regional
Planning indicated it was permitted under County Code at the time he began
the work.
Mr. Hughes asked if staff could obtain a clear statement from the County
as to its position at that time and advised Mr. Rennie towork with Mr.
Weber.
Mr. Weber said he would check with Regional Planning and research past zon-
ing ordinances of the County.
I
VARIANCE NO. 38 Mrs. Bacharach proposed the following
Adoption of Resolution addition to Section 1 of the draft
resolution: "High winds in the back
yard limit usable outdoor living area
to the front."
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and carried, with
Mr. Hughes abstaining, the above proposed wording was added to Section 1
of the draft resolution.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and carried, with
Mr. Hughes abstaining, Resolution No. 79-9 was adopted, thereby granting
Variance No. 38.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 11986 Mr. Weber said this request was for
2300 & 2310 Sparta Drive realignment of property lines, that
Landowner: F. Iovene & F. Vidovich there are homes on both lots, and
Applicant: John Vilicich that no grading or construction was
proposed as part of the lot line ad-
3ustment. He reviewed the zoning,
minimum lot size requirement, area description, and explained that the
purpose for the request was to increase the amount of usable sideyard for
2310 Sparta. He said a site inspection revealed an unapproved retaining
wall on the proposed property line. He discussed the primary considera-
tions and said the adjustment would not create substandard lots and was a
logical request. Staff recommended approval of the map subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution. Mr. Weber said
because of the height of the wall in the front setback area, either a
variance or reducing the total height of the wall would be required to
bring the wall into compliance with the Development Code. He added that
a grading permit was also required because of the retaining wall and the
amount of fill involved.
Frank Iovene spoke briefly to the Commission about the wall and answered
questions.
On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously
carried, Resolution No. 79-10 was adopted, thereby approving Tentative
Parcel Map No. 11986, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A".
VARIANCE NO. 39 Ms. Heit said this request was for a
2333 Sparta Drive deck that exceeds the maximum height
Applicant: Peter D'Acquisto for an accessory structure. She said
the deck was 17 feet to the top of
the rail and did not connect to the
main structure. She said approval of the deck was a condition of sale for
the residence, that the deck was constructed without City or County approval
after December of 1975. She said the main reason for construction of the
deck appeared to be the applicant's desire to gain the harbor view and aug-
ment the small rear yard. Staff felt a deck the height of 12 feet would
serve the same purposes and that there were no exceptional circumstances
which do not exist on other properties. Based on the inability to make
the required findings, staff recommended denial of the variance.
Mr. Hughes explained public hearing procedures and opened the public hearing.
Peter D'Acquisto, 2333 Sparta Drive, said at the time he built the deck he
was unaware of the height restriction and did not know a permit was re-
quired. He said other than the height, the deck was built to Code.
Dennis McKlintock, San Pedro, representing the applicant, felt the deck
falls within the spirit of the Code and he reviewed the plans with the
Commission.
Ms. DiBernardo, 729 Bynner Drive, San Pedro, realtor, said denial of the
request would present a financial predicament for the applicant.
On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously car-
ried, the public heating was closed.
Mr. McTaggart said construction over a steep grade would only be permitted
for the principal structure. He said a variance could not be considered
necessary for the purpose of enabling someone to sit down on a deck and
see the harbor. He said he could not make the required findings.
Mr. Hinchliffe said he could not make finding A because all the lots in
the area are the same; he could not make finding B because the yard was
comparable in size to those of the neighbors; and he questioned making
finding D because of the statement in the General Plan concerning preserva-
tion of the canyons.
5/8/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
Mrs. Bacharach did not see how the deck was necessary as the yard was
large enough and the side yard was as large as exists anywhere. She said
all of those lots in the area were the same.
Dr. Brown felt the hardship was self-imposed, and agreed with staff's
analysis of the findings as shown in the staff report.
Mr. Hughes was unable to make the findings. He was concerned about the
fact that if the footings were moved, the deck would meet the Code but
would not change anything, as the intrusion into the canyon area would be
the same.
Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to adopt
Resolution No. 70-11, denying Variance No. 39.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council
within 15 calendar days.
Mr. Weber said staff would send a letter to the applicant advising him of
the decision, his right to appeal, and directing the applicant to remove
the deck.
On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the Commission decided to reconsider the above motion.
Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to add to
Section 3 of the resolution the following: "...and when the City appeal
period lapses that notice of the above action be filed with the County
Recorder, stating that the deck is in violation of the City ordinances and
was constructed without permits.
Mr. Hughes suggested that the City Attorney review the above wording and
determine what type document should be recorded.
Vote on the above motion was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolu-
tion No. 79-11, as modified this evening, thereby denying Variance No. 39.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33206 Mr. Weber said the request was that
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 31 the streets proposed for this tract
San Pedro Hill - Crest Road (East) be privately owned instead of public,
Applicant/Landowner: S&S Constr. as approved. He reviewed the back-
ground and said the initial proposal
was for private ownership, that the
decision to change to public streets was at a Planning Commission meeting
during which the Commission expressed concern that private roads tend to
produce residential enclaves which were not in the best interest of the
City. He said the Public Works Director felt this was a logical request
and recommended approval because of the lack of parkways, inclusion of
5/8/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
parking bays in the streets, narrow rights-of-way, and impairment of main-
tenance operations. Staff felt the physical and geographical characteris-
tics of the site were such that it would function as an enclave with or
without public streets. He said access through the site would be guaran-
teed by a trail easement that would provide pedestrian access to a public
look -out point, and a public trail that traverses the site from north to
south. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council
that the request be approved.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Weber explained that the final
grading plan necessitated incorporation of some retaining walls next to
the roadway, which eliminates room for utilities, etc. He said there was
a worsening of the grading and that the walls came after the formal tenta-
tive map approval; however, they were within what staff considered the
intent of the Planning Commission approval.
Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the liability aspect.
Mr. Hinchliffe felt if the grading had changed to the point where it was
affecting the road network, perhaps the Commission should review the whole
project again.
Mr. Weber said staff approved the grading plan and felt the intent was
there and that the applicant had held closely to:the approved grades of
the roadway.
The Commission was concerned that the Public Works Director had changed
his mind at this late date and that they had followed his previous recom-
mendation.
John Alday, S & S Construction Company, said there had been some changes
but that they were trying to stick to the tentative tract map. He felt
because of the location of the site and other factors that the proposal
was worth reconsideration. He said private streets would increase the
value of the homes.
Mr. McTaggart said it has been their experience that storm drains, etc.,
create the biggest problem in the City with private ownership. He was
reluctant to make a decision without more background information.
Mrs. Bacharach said the Commission did not want gated communities in the
City, that everyone in the City should be able to enjoy the view. She
felt that area was too important to close off to the public.
Dr. Brown said although he was not on the Commission at the time the origi-
nal decision was made, he did attend the meetings. He remembered a very
strong desire of the Commission and Council to have this a publiq�accessi-
ble area.
Mr. Hinchliffe concurred and had nothing further to add.
Mr. Hughes concurred. He said he opposed making the roadway system private
before. He expressed concern about the wording of the memo from the
Public Works Director re the Commission's previous action.
Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a memo, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to recommend
to the City Council denial of the request for private streets in Tract
No. 33206.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mrs. Bacharach felt the Planning Commission should be represented at the
City Council meeting.
5/8/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-
Mr. Hughes felt something was necessary to correct the impression left by
the memo from the Public Works Director.
Mrs. Bacharach felt the Director of Public works had ample time for review.
I
Mr. Weber said he had tentatively scheduled this item for the May 15 City
Council meeting and suggested that if the Commission wished to respond in
writing, it should be submitted by Thursday morning.
Mr. Hughes said a member of the Commission would appear at the Council
meeting.
John Alday said that based on the strong negative reaction on the part of
the Planning Commission, he would withdraw the request.
GRADING NO. 364 Mr. Weber said the request was to
Yacht Harbor Drive allow for grading and road repair in
Applicant/Landowner: Palos Verdes the Portuguese Bend Club and was simi-
Properties lar to previously approved requests.
He said the old active landslide was
encroaching closer to some homes and
causing havoc to Yacht Harbor Drive. He said it has been indicated by the
project engineer that the movement was so rapid that a dangerous situation
now exists. He said _§Itua-ifibn =arid the fact that the Applicant
thought he could do corrective work based on the last approval, grading was
initiated. He said a stop work order was placed on the job when the City
became aware of the grading; but that when the City was apprised of the
urgency of the matter the order was lifted and the emergency grading was
allowed to proceed. He said the applicant was apprised at that time, how-
ever, that the formal application must follow normal procedures. He said
the plan was to cut back the hillside which had moved and covered what was
the road, and relocate the earth to a site immediately south on the toe of
the landslide. He said according to the geologist, placing the earth in
that location would not affect the landslide. He said a "hold Harmless"
letter had been received from the applicant. Staff recommended approval
since landslide movement threatened to damage homes and did not allow for
safe vehicular access to several more homes. Further, staff recommended
that the Commission consider giving staff authority to process similar
future applications administratively, thereby avoiding unnecessary delays.
He said staff would come back with a formal resolution if the Commission
was in agreement.
Mr. Hinchliffe said since he lived in the area he would not vote on the
issue but would answer any questions the Commission had.
Mike Nichols, Lanco, engineer for the site, said the slide was moving about
10-12 feet per year.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried, with Mr.
Hinchliffe abstaining, Grading No. 364 was approved.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously
carried, the Commission directed that a resolution be prepared authorizing
staff to make administrative decisions relative to emergency grading in
the slide area and that notice be sent to the Planning Commission on any
actions taken which would normally have required Commission action.
Mr. Hughes asked about emergencies which occur on weekends.
Mr. Weber said the Sheriff was supposed to be able to coordinate any emer-
gencies with the staff.
COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes was concerned about the
proliferation of garage sale signs
and home rental signs, etc. He said
there was only spot enforcement on signing and that it was not consistent.
5/8/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-
Mrs. Bacharach suggested going to the City Council with some suggested
solutions.
Mr. Hughes suggested sending something to the City Council asking if the
City really wanted a sign ordinance like this one and, if so, it should
be enforced.
The Commission wondered if there was funding for enforcement.
Mr. Hughes said he would write a letter to the City Council re the sign
problem and submit copies to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hughes asked about the Hawke case.
Mr. Weber said there was a City agreement approving the wall subject to
conditions re the guard rail and landscaping.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:16 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday,
May 22, 1979, at 7:30 p.m.
5/8/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-