PC MINS 19790814M I N U T E S (pq)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
August 14, 1979
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe.
PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe
ABSENT: None
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Assistant Plan-
ners Karen Heit and John Emeterio.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded
by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried,
the minutes of the meeting of July 24,
1979 were approved with the following amendments: page 2, add to the end
of paragraph 13 "When the CC&Rs were brought forward and explored, it was
found that they did not preclude two-story structures, as there was a
mechanism for obtaining approval of two-story homes, and this was pointed
out to the audience."; page 3, paragraph 2, line 4, should read "...pres-
ident of..."; page 3, paragraph 4, should read "...Bacharach and Dr. Brown
were bothered..... ordinance. They said the City..."; page 3, paragraph 12,
should read "...the key word was..."; and page 6, paragraph 6, line 1,
should read "...representing the architect, Dr. Roberts,..."
COMMUNICATIONS Director Hightower said two letters
were distributed to the Commission
this evening concerning Grading Appli-
cation No. 371. She said the one from the applicant was received in the
office today and the one from the applicant's attorney was received this
evening.
GRADING NO. 371 APPEAL Ms. Heit said the staff report was in
3422 Deluna Drive response to the Commission's request
Landowner/Applicant: D. Jacobson for information from the County and
the City Attorney. She said the County
indicated they are unable to make a
determination on the safety of the wall and that compliance with the Code
can only be determined by testing, inspection, and certification by a pri-
vate laboratory. She said the City Attorney indicated that the Commission
should handle the issue of safety by putting the Building and Safety Depart-
ment on notice after a decision on the project's compliance with the Devel-
opment Code has been made; that safety should not be a consideration of the
Commission in reaching a decision; that the City is not liable for any dam-
age caused by wall failure because the City has taken proper action to bring
the project into compliance. The City Attorney also said that the City was
not obligated to pursue the issue of the project engineer's professional
ethics, but could notify the licensing agency and the Department of Consumer
Affairs. Staff recommended that the Commission uphold staff's denial and
require restoration of the site.
David R. Jacobson, 3422 Deluna Drive, said there were three directives
from the Commission at the last meeting: staff was to investigate the
safety aspect, the architect was to submit a corrected plan, and the archi-
tect was to meet with staff and look at alternatives.
Dan Van Dorpe, 12900 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, said he could
not submit the corrected plan at this time because he did not have all the
information. He said he did meet with staff and prepared an alternate
plan for the Commission.
In response to a Commission question, Director Hightower said the proposed
alternate plan had not been submitted to staff for review.
Mr. Van Dorpe explained that he brought the plan tonight to submit to the
Commission; however, he still felt the original plan met the intent of the
Code.
Mrs. Bacharach was concerned that the original plans had not been corrected
to reflect the existing placement of the walls, etc.
Mr. Van Dorpe said there were some minor discrepancies but did not feel
that whether the wall was 5 or 6 feet or whether the grades shown on the
plan varied slightly from the actual site should matter at this point. He
said the project would be made to conform to whatever was approved. He
said whatever conditions were imposed on the approved plan would be met.
Re the alternate plan submitted this evening, the Commissioners felt they
should not act on a plan without the advice and consultation of their pro-
fessional staff. They decided not to consider the plan since staff had
not had the opportunity to review and evaluate it.
Mr. Van Dorpe said they did not feel the grading was excessive, that it
was only for the purpose of providing a house, patio, swimming pool and
other uses relating to the primary use of the lot for a single family site.
He said they did not feel the project would affect the visual relationship
with neighboring sites once the work was finished and the landscaping was
done. He said they felt that based on the ordinance the fact that the
finished slopes would be greater than 35 percent was a reason for considera-
tion of the project, not denial. He said although the average fill would
be less than 3 feet 6 inches, as it stands right now the fill could be up
to 5 feet in the southwest corner; but that they would comply with whatever
conditions the Commission imposed. He said they did not feel the height
and number of downslope retaining walls were exceeded because they con-
tended there was only one.
Mr. McTaggart said that the City determined years ago that slopes in ex-
cess of 35 percent must be maintained and protected because so many of
the natural environmental features were contained in those slopes. He
said so as not to deprive property owners of the right to develop their
lots, the City determined it would be allowable for the primary use of the
lot, which on a residential lot means a house.
Mr. Van Dorpe said that was not clear to them at the time they prepared
the plans. Re the walls, he said there were five permitted -type§ of --walls
and that they were proposing one of each. He said they felt they were
conforming to the Code. He said the Code allows for grading on slopes
greater than 35 percent if it is an existing lot. He said the downslope
retaining wall proposed averages 3 feet 6 inches and will have a 6 -foot
fence on top, which is allowed. He said another wall is an integral part
of the pool. He referred to an upslope wall on the site and said there
were three segments but because they were attached it was really one wall.
He said the other wall was allowed because the lot slopes with the street.
He said the height of the rear wall was 8 feet 8 inches but would not
retain any more than 3 feet 6 inches.
Mr. McTaggart said the ordinance was written to prevent a rice paddy effect.
In response to a Commission question, Director Hightower said the Code per-
mitted a fence on top of a retaining wall.
Scott Nichols, 4909 Lakewood Boulevard, Suite 300, Lakewood, said the issue
of primary use as defined in the Code was something that the Director of
Planning, the City Attorney, and himself should discuss. He said the
architect had defined the issues, that there was an existing lot and an
existing use. He said conditions should be imposed by the City to ensure
no adverse effect on the health, safety, and general welfare. He said
the concern of the Planning Commission should be whether or not the project
is good planning and a good development and meets the Code. He said the
letter before the Commission refers to a problem that he has with the
Code's adoption.
In response to a Commission question, Mr. Nichols said his practice was
in the field of municipal law.
8/14/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
•
Joyce Frey, 3414 Deluna Drive, was concerned about the grading and said
the codes were adopted for her protection and the protection of her neigh-
bors.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried,
public participation was closed.
It was the consensus of the Commission that activities were undertaken on
the site that do not meet the intent of the Code, that this situation would
not have occurred had normal procedures been followed, and that never before
had they seen so many misinterpretations of the Code in one application.
The Commission discussed a time period for restoration of the site and
asked if there was a mechanism to submit an alternative plan to staff.
Director Hightower said if the applicant submits a revised plan which staff
finds complies with the Code, staff could immediately approve it and re-
quire restoration of whatever did not comply.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car-
ried, the appeal of Grading Application No. 371 was denied and the applicant
was required to restore the slopes to their original condition, as deter-
mined by staff. The restoration is to begin within thirty (30) days of
this decision and be completed within sixty (60) days of the decision. The
main finding for denial was that the project is proposed on slopes greater
than thirty-five (35) percent and that the project is not for the primary
use of the property. The Commission cited the following findings as reasons
for denial:
1. Grading is excessive beyond that necessary for the
permitted primary use of the lot.
2. The grading and/or construction does significantly
adversely affect the visual relationships with
neighboring sites.
3. The project creates finished slopes greater than
thirty-five (35) percent.
4. Fill exceeds five (5) feet in the southwestern
corner.
5. Height and number of downslope and side retaining
walls are exceeded.
6. Project has grading on a slope greater than thirty-
five (35) percent.
Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City
Council within fifteen (15) calendar days.
Mr. Hughes said later in the meeting
with the Commission on information he
action on professional engineers.
RECESS
he was going to bring up a discussion
obtained concerning disciplinary
At 9:00 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m.
with the same members present.
GRADING NO. 380 APPEAL Mr. Emeterio said the request was for
2810 Colt Road approval of 630 cubic yards of grading
Landowner/Applicant: F. Boettcher (cut) and an 8 -foot retaining wall,
proposed to create a level area near
the rear of the property for a horse
corral and stable. He said the primary conflict with the Code is the height
of the proposed downslope retaining wall. In addition, he said the grading
was excessive for a secondary use. He said the application was denied by
8/14/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
staff and before the Commission on appeal. He summarized the appellant's
primary contentions and referred the Commission to the letter of appeal.
Staff felt that adequate equestrian usage was possible on the lot within
the limits of the Code and recommended that the appeal be denied.
Fred Boettcher, 2810 Colt Road, said they want the 8 -foot wall to corral
and work with the horses. He did not feel the wall would be objectionable
because of the difference in elevation and the large setback area. He
pointed out that he could construct -a wall 6 feet in height, as allowed
by Code, on the property line. He said they were trying to preserve as
much of the existing landscaping as possible. He reviewed the plans for
the proposed project and showed the Commission a plan for the stable
which had not yet been submitted to staff.
The Commission discussed different alternatives for lowering the wall and
reducing the grading and following different contours.
Mrs. Boettcher said they want the area to be used as a lunge ring and for
their daughter to practice barrel racing.
The Commission discussed location of the property line, whether or not
there was an easement on the driveway, and whether or not this was con-
sidered to be a corner lot. They said the stable could not be located
within a setback area and could not be closer than 35 feet from any resi-
dential structure.
It was the consensus of the Commission to have these questions resolved
prior to a decision and also to have the applicant work with staff on
alternative plans. They did not feel they could justify approving the
wall and excessive grading when there were other alternatives.
Director Hightower said staff would work with the applicant on alternatives,
and if revised plans are submitted which meet the concerns of the Commis-
sioners, they could deny the appeal and approve the revised plans.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried,
the item was continued.
Mrs. Bacharach said it/tffs- really helpful to have a site plan or drawing
included in the agenda packets,
STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower had some concerns
with the requirement that three-
dimensional models be submitted early
in the process. She said models cannot be changed and cost a great deal
of money to prepare. She suggested accepting preliminary plans first to
see if there are any major problems before requiring the applicant to sub-
mit a model. She felt they could require drawings first, discuss major
issues at a preliminary Commission hearing, and then require the model.
COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes was concerned about the
confusion of up-slope and down-slope
walls.
Mrs. Bacharach asked about the budget with regard to review of the Develop-
ment Code and procedures. Director Hightower said the project would in-
volve selecting and reviewing those things which have been problems.
Mr. Hughes felt the Code needed definitions of primary and accessory struc-
tures.
Mr. Hughes discussed the Professional Engineers Act and said he called the
State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers to find out disci-
plinary procedures. He said the procedure would be to write to the Chief
Investigative officer, and he discussed some of the reasons that someone
can be brought before the Board. He said he would check with the City
Attorney before proceeding and then draft a letter for the Commission's
review.
8/14/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-
s
Mr. Hughes said he has no business cards with the new City logo that iden-
tify him as a Planning Commissioner since he is no longer chairman.
Mr. Hughes and Dr. Brown said they would not be able to attend the next
regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:30 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried to adjourn to Tuesday,
August 28, 1979, at 7:30 p.m.
8/14/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-