PC MINS 19791009-7 9
M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
October 9, 1979
The meeting was called to order at 7:36 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
Planner Karen Heit.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by
Mr. Hughes, and carried, with Mrs.
Bacharach abstaining, the minutes of
the meeting of September 25, 1979 were approved with the following amend-
ments: page 3, paragraph 2 and 7, should read "Mr. Peterkovich"; and page
4, 6th complete paragraph, should read "...Bacharach, and carried, Sign
Permit No. 78 was denied.....within 45 days. Mr. Hughes was the dissentin
Vote as he felt the signs should be removed within 30 days, as suggested b
Ms. Lavitt dur'inq the discussion."
COMMUNICATIONS
Commission this evening.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 43 EXTENSION
Highridge &-Peacockridge Roads
Applicant: Ray Mathys
Landowner: Joe Anthony
a six-month extension to April 24,
Director Hightower said there were no
other communications besides those
which had been distributed to the
Director Hightower referred to the
letter from the applicant (attached
to the staff report) requesting that
the expiration date for Conditional
Use Permit No. 43 be extended. Staff
recommended that the Commission grant
1980.
Ray Mathys, applicant, spoke to the Commission about why the extension was
necessary.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the Commission granted a six-month extension for Conditional Use Permit
No. 43, extending the expiration date to April 24, 1980.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 11819 Ms. Heit said the request was for a
5383 Rolling Ridge Road two -parcel lot split of a 96,200 square
Applicant/Landowner: G.& M. Schuler foot parcel within an RS -2 zoning dis-
trict. She described the location of
the site and said access to the exist-
ing residence was taken off of Rolling Ridge Road and access to the proposed
second parcel would be taken through an existing private drive coming .
directly off of Via Campesina. She said the proposed lots will satisfy the
minimum requirements of the zoning district. Staff recommended approval
subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution.
Ms. Heit said the parkland dedication fee referred to in condition 24 was
$2989.
George Schuler, 1617 South Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach, represent-
ing his mother, Margaret Schuler, was concerned about conditions 6, 10 and
25. He said those conditions require bonding for access improvements and
bonding or installation of utilities prior to approval of the final map.
He said they were not planning to develop the property at this time and
that there would be a problem if they bond for these conditions and then
sell the property.
In response to a Commission question, Director Hightower said this was a
requirement of the Code with any subdivision of land. She did not know
if bonds could be transferred upon sale 6f --the property.
Mr. Schuler did not understand why a bond was necessary since this was
private property, not public property. He said he never heard of bonding
for private improvements.
Mr. Hinchliffe explained that this falls under the State Map Act and that
all persons applying for a subdivision must conform to those regulations.
Director Hightower said although the applicant considered it private
property, the condition applies to the access easement to the lot line.
In response to a concern of Dr. Brown, Director Hightower said the
Commission could add to condition 18 "as delineated on the final map."
Dr. Wilson, 3458 Via Campesina, said when he purchased his property he
was not made aware that there was an easement, that it does not show
up on his deed. He said if there is an easement there, the access would
destroy his neighbor's bank and concrete drainage area. He was strongly
opposed to having a driveway there and felt another alternative would
be to have the access off of Rolling Ridge Road. He said if there was
in fact an easement through his property, he would like the opportunity
to speak with the title insurance company and a real estate attorney.
Mr. Hinchliffe explained that the matter before the commission was whether
or not the request was consistent with the Development Code and that they
could not consider the failure of his title insurance company to show
the easement.
Dr. Jayatilaka, 3462 Via Campesina, said this easement would take quite
a bit off his land and that 50 percent of the access road would be
built -on a steep slope. He suggested having the access through the
flat portion of land. He said this easement would be very close to his
house and was concerned about the effect on his yard. He said his deed
does show an easement there.
Mr. McTaggart said the access road would be engineered for safety.
Dr. Wilson said this would destroy the aesthetics of Dr. Jayatilka's
property.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that Dr. Jayatilaka purchased his property knowing
that there was an easement there.
Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolu-
tion P.C. No. 79-14, thereby --approving Tentative Parcel Map No.- 11819,
subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A", with the following revisions
to condition 18:
"Grading and construction activity associated with the construc-
tion of a single family residence on Parcel 2, except for -
access, shall be confined to that area with a slope 6f ss
than 35 percent, as delineated on the final map."
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
10/9/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
Mr. Hinchliffe advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City
Council within fifteen calendar days.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 10955 Ms. Heit said this request was for the
Northeast corner Via Lorado and division of a now vacant parcel to
Palos Verdes Drive West create two buildable single family
Applicant: Thomas Outland lots with access'from via Lorado from
Landowner: E. & B. Slauta a common driveway. She said the
property was zoned RS -4 and the total
average slope of the site was 14
percent. She said the two lots meet all minimum Code requirements and
have -no overlay control districts or other restrictions. -She -said the
potential for View obstruction may exist if a --residence is constructed
higher than the 16 -foot height limit on either proposed parcel, but that
the public view from Palos Verdes Drive West would not be impacted by
the project site. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions
listed in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution.
Ms. Heit said the parkland dedication fee referred to in condition 18 was
$5600.
Eugene Slauta, 15326 Spinning Avenue, Gardena, said he read the conditions
and agreed with the majority of them but was concerned about the height
limit of 16 feet, since he would probably want to construct two-story
homes.
Mr. Hinchliffe explained the procedure for requesting approval to exceed
the 16 -foot height limit. I
Mr. Hughes said there was a lot of concern about access wher�4I,ots 4 and
5 were before the Commission for approval. He wondered if there was a
more suitable access approach for these new lots.
Gary Erland, 7430 Via Lorado, was concerned about the number of driveways
all in a row. He was al§o concerned about the lot size requirements,
as the adjoining lots are considerably larger than what is proposed.
He felt this would not be aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors and
did not feel they would be buildable lots. He expressed concern about
the unsafe conditions which have continually occurred during the past
couple years while the construction has been taking place on Via Lorado,
including obstruction of the public right-of-way. He said it has been
difficult for him to obtain results from his many complaints.
Mr. Hughes explained that the zoning district establishes minimum lot
sizes and the applicant was proposing a subdivision which is consistent
with the zoning requirements.
Mr. Hughes asked if th4 Commission could deny the parcel map because of
inadequate access.
Director Hightower said the Commission could require that the applicant
investigate other means of access but could not require that he obtain.'
it, and could not deny the map because of it.
Robert Murrin, 7335 Via Lorado, spoke in favor of the subdivision. He
said the problems which the previous speaker mentioned were related to
construction, not subdivision. He agreed there have been some dangerous
situations. He said he hoped future construction in the neighborhood
would be done in a more orderly manner. I
In response to Commission questions, Director Hightower said a complaint
had been received this afternoon. Ms. Heit said two complaints were
received several months ago and both had been referred to Public Works.
Mr. McTaggart said there was a provision in the Code to handle debris,
etc., in the public right-of-way.
Mrs. Bacharach proposed that the Commission discuss the issue of response
to complaints later in the meeting under Commission items.
10/9/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
Mrs. Bacharach asked if the Commission could require that the applicant
try to obtain other access and present to the Commission written
evidence of rejection -if he is unable to obtain other access.
Mr. Slauta said he was only proposing one driveway for two lots, that
other access for one of the lots would not solve anything as he would
still have one driveway off of Via Lorado.
Mr. McTaggart felt one driveway for twd lots was not excessive.
Carol Roland, 7442 Via Lorado, said she had no -objection to the sub-
division, but was concerned about the driveways. She said, however,
that she spoke to Mr. Hauf this evening and he would not agree to the
access from his property because of the construction that has already
taken place.
Mr. Hughes said this method of piece -meal subdivision has created quite
a problem. He wished there were some -other arterinatiVe'meth6ds Which
could be looked into. He suggested asking the City Attorney about this.
He said there were other lots behind that will be subdivided someday and
felt it might be worthwhile' -at this point to take them into consideration,
as far as access. He said perhaps the City should be looking at putting
a road through there.
Mrs. Bacharach felt they should find out how much buildable acreage exists
back there. She suggested a study to determine where future access for
those lots would come from.
I
Director Hightower said they have not analyzed that area, but doubted
that these two lots would have an impact. She said the Department does
not have the staff right now to do a quick study in any kind of depth.
She said there is a time limit on this project, that a decision must be
made early November.
Mr. McTaggart said there was concern with the traffic entering Via Lorado,
but that if the City wanted the access at a certain point, it must buy
it.
Dr. Brown agreed with Mr. Hughes and Mrs. Bacharach.
Director Hightower said on a cursory look, the zoning map shows the lots
and their configuration.
Mr. Hinchliffe asked why there was such a tight time limit on this project.
Ms. Heit said a required geology report was slow in coming., --
Mrs. Hinchliffe said he would favor tabling this to the next regular
scheduled meeting to have the input of a cursgry review.
Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to continue
this matter to the next meeting for a report from staff as to the access
problems related to the other lots in the area.
Mr. McTaggart felt if the City wants to prevent further intrusion on-
to the road, the properwaywould be to change the zoning or something
like that for future development. He did not feel --the Commission had
the choice of denying this parcel map.
Vote on the above motion was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10/9/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
COMMISSION REPORTS Mrs. Bacharach asked the procedure
when the Public Works Department re-
ceives a complaint concerning obstruc-
tion of the public right-of-way during construction. She asked if they
have stop work orders.
Director Hightower said she was not made aware of any of these previous
complaints. She said they were forwarded to the Public Works Department
where they belong and could not respond to how that department handled the
complaints.
Mr. Hughes said there was a remedy in the Development Code requiring
removal in 36 hours after notification or the Director of Public Works
shall cause its removal and charge the developer.
Mrs. Bacharach suggested that the Commission either send a memo to the
Council asking that they direct the Public Works Department to respond
to complaints or relate its concerns directly to the Public works Director
without a memo to Council.
Director Hightower said she would relate the Commissions concerns to the
Public Works Director.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that this was a large city with a small staff.
Mr. Erland said the Public Works Director did respond to his complaints
when he spoke to him but prior to that he was shuffled around. He said
his complaints were about dust control, cement- in the roadway, lumber
in the roadway, and obstruction of the sidewalk.
Dr. Brown said he was satisfied with having Director Hightower communicate
the problem to the Public Works Director;
Mr. Erland asked if there were any time-_limitsf—or the - buildi-n-g-o-f-a-hous6.
He said construction has been going on for about three years.
Mr. Hughes said the City in some cases has bent over backwards trying to
to be the "nice guy" and not enforcing its zoning ordinance. He said
the most recent landslide was a good example. He felt there has
been a great deal of inconsistency with various zoning matters.
Mr.,§,.'Bacharach said her concern was that when someone calls with a
complaint it must be responded to.
Mr.- Hinchliffe asked if Mrs. Bacharach wanted to investigate responses
to complaints to assist the Code Enforcement Subcommittee, made up of
Mr. McTaggart and Mr. Hughes.
F
Mr.' Hughes said the Subcommittee would try to report back at the next
meeting.
Mr. Erland asked if there was a private citizen volunteer program to
assist the'CIty-. He said he was a reserve police officer for Los Angeles
but would much rather donate his time to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Mr. Hughes said the only program available for citizen participation
was to be on a Commission or Committee.
Mr. Hughes said the City Attorney's office called him and said it would
be appropriate for the Commission to write a letter to the State review
board for civil engineers. He said he wrote a letter and submitted it to
the City Attorney. He hoped he would have it back by the next meeting for
the Commission's review.
ADJOURNMENT At 10:00 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday,
October 23, 1979, at 7:30 p.m.
10/9/79 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 -5-