PC MINS 19800513M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
May 13, 1980
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe.
PRESENT: Brown, Hughes (late arrival), McTaggart, Hinchliffe
ABSENT: None
Also present were Acting Director of Planning Gary Weber, Associate Planner
Richard Thompson, and Assistant Planner John Emeterio.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by
Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried,
the minutes of the meeting of April 22,
1980 were approved with the following correction: page 3, line 2, should
read "...for the foundation inspection..."
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35040 Mr. Weber said at the last meeting the
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 51 Commission reviewed the revised version
Palos Verdes Drive South @ Seawolf of alternate "A" and agreed that with
Landowner: Calwah Development minor revisions the design was generally
Applicant: Young & Associates acceptable. He said the Commission
directed the applicant to modify the
site design so that the tennis court
was a greater distance from the Porto Verde --Apartments. He said the
revised plans were submitted and the tennis court was relocated. In
general, staff was satisfied with the plan as presented, but had some
minor questions regarding the grading. He said staff was able to do a
quick view analysis using a worst case, at 30 feet from the garage floor
on an uphill lot. He said the only critical impact would be the view from
the upper northbound barrel heading towards Marineland, that a portion of
the horizon would be obstructed. He noted again that this was a worst
case situation. He showed photographs taken from different locations.
Mr. Hughes arrived at 8:50 p.m.
In summary, staff felt comfortable with the concept proposed. Mr. Weber
said he would feel more comfortable if there were ridgeline heights
drawn in and if some grading questions were resolved.
In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Weber said the difference
in the grade between the southbound and northbound barrel varied and was
about 6-8 feet at one location and 10-12 feet at another.
In response to Commission questions concerning conditions #11 of the
Conditional Use Permit resolution, Mr. Weber said the staff had proposed
for next fiscal year a major project which would implement solar and
energy requirements for all new subdivisions and that this was a chance
to get an early start on what will become a Code requirement next year.
He said other cities were doing this ancl_that the City Attorney had no
problems with it. He said the analysis -staff has seen indicates there
was sufficient sunlight to adequately heat the pool, although there was
no 'specific information to guarantee comfort all year long.
Mr. Hughes said the condition requires solar energy as the only heat
source. He wondered if there was really enough sunlight in the coastal
region for that.
Mr. Weber said the coniditon could be changed to allow for a back-up
system.
Mr. Hughes asked if there was a mechanism to make it clear to the
buyers and the homeowners association that there was an easement to
allow for access to the Chevron site.
Mr. Weber said he was certain that would at least be included in
CC&Rs but was not sure it could go into the final subdivision report.
Mr. Hughes said he would like to make it part of the public report
that the people have to sign.
Mr. Hinchliffe explained that this was a continued public hearing
and opened the hearing for public comments.
Roy Young, Young & Associates, architect for the project, said they
could probably ad3ust the height elevation of the units near the road
by about 3 feet. He said they would like to get as much view from
those units as possible. He said they could change to a split level
design. He said at the present time there was a 30 -foot difference
between the ridge and the garage slab and thought that they could
change that to 27 feet.
Mr. McTaggart felt 30 feet in a view plane was excessive and he was
concerned about the potential for substantial view blockage.
Mr. Young said they could lower it another foot by going to a
lesser roof slope.
Mr. Weber said the existing chain link fence which would later be
removed was approximatley 6 feet high. He said right now the structures
were 4 feet above the fence and that if the structures were brought
down to the top of the fence there should be no significant view problems.
Regarding the condition for solar energy, Mr. Young said he would feel
more comfortable with a back-up system. He said one of the employees
in his office was on the CAIA Committee. He said they suggest using
pool covers to maintain the heat.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and carried,
with Dr. Brown dissenting, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. McTaggart asked if staff would feel comfortable with a condition
to work out the ridgelines and have them drawn on the map prior to final
approval. Mr. Weber said yes.
Regarding the solar condition, Mr. McTaggart personally felt they should
allow a back-up system. He said outside of the ridgeline heights and the
problems staff had with the grading, he felt the architect had done a
fine job meeting the concerns of the Commission.
Mr. Hughes said he would like to make sure a potential buyer had
adequate notice of the easement. He shared the same concerns with
Mr. 14cTaggart about the solar heat and providing a back-up system. He
said he would like staff to find out more information about solar heat
so that they could make sure it could do the job and as to how big
it would have to be, and also some measure on the back-up system. He
said before -he could approve the project he would need to see the ridge -
lines. He suggested a condition of the landscape plan so that the
landscaping treatment did not end up blocking views in 10 years.
Mr. Weber referred to condition 7.E. of the Conditional Use Permit
resolution related to landscaping.
Mr. Hughes hoped that condition would give the City an adequate
mechanism for enforcement.
Mr. Weber said they could require very specific wording in the CC&Rs.
5/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
Dr. Brown suggested a condition that the applicant come back and
request a back-up system for heating the pool if necessary.
Mr. McTaggart said if the pro3ect is done the owners would have to
tear up the concrete, etc., to put in a gas line for an alternate
system.
Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to grant
conceptual approval.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Hinchliffe asked that the architect or applicant come to the
next meeting having read each of the conditions and state that they
understand them.
HEIGHT VARIATION 142 APPEAL Mr. Emeterio said after review of the
3632 Vigilance Drive plans and relevant data on April 22,
Appellant: Dr. & Mrs. Y. Aelony the Commission instructed staff to
complete additional information
concerning the project. He said
the appellant had agreed to proceed with the revised project height of
20 feet 2 inches. He said the garage next door (3624 Vigilance) to the
subject property was approximately 15 feet high and could be extended
out approximately another 10 feet towards the front property line. He
said there was approximately 5-10 feet difference in elevation between
the subject property and 3624 Vigilance, and approximately 10-15 feet
difference in elevation between 3624 and 3618 Vigilance. He said the
distance between the subject residence and slope varied from 28-30 feet.
He said the County Building & Safety Department would require a minimum
3 feet but preferably 4 feet setback from the toe of the slope. It
was staff's opinion that the area was adequate to accommodate a single
story addition providing more square footage than the proposed second
story addition. It was staff's opinion that a significant cumulative
impact could result by granting this application, as the structures at
3624 or 3618 Vigilance may be increased to gain back that portion of
the view lost to the proposed project, thereby interfering with views of
other properties. He said a site inspection indicated no view obstruction
from Seaglen Drive. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the
appeal because there were alternative building locations available and
if approved the project may cause significant cumulative impact.
Mr. Hughes asked if in staff's opinion there was a significant view
impairment and, if so, to which property.
Mr. Emeterio said yes, and that 3618 Vigilance would be most affected.
Mr. McTaggart said the whole Code was.written to mean that if a
structure 16 feet high and built a #;:'t7f the required setback areas
would block a view, there was no expectation of a view.
Mr. Hinchliffe asked for a demonstration of cumulative impact in this
case.
Mr. Emeterio said there was a possibility that the homes up the hill
would build up to gain back the lost view, particularly the two most
affected structures, 3618 and 3624 Vigilance.
Mr. Hinchliffe said the Commission must first determine whether or not
there is view obstruction. He said if a 16 -foot addition to the house
in between would completely block out the proposed addition, is there
a view obstruction.
Mr. Weber said in the long run there was no reasonable expectation of
a view in that situation.
5/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
Public participation was opened.
Yossef Aelony, appellant, 3632 Vigilance Drive, said a single story
addition, as suggested by staff, would significantly obstruct the
view of his neighbors' back yard. He said staff' reasoning for cumulative
effect was sophistry because the people which may build up to gain
back lost view never had a view to lose according to the definition
in the .Code of a view lot. He also said there was no other case on
Vigilance where this situation could be repeated because the orientation
of the other homes was different. He said they redesigned the addition
making it 15 percent smaller than originally planned so as not to
obstruct their neighbors' view.
Michael Burke, 3642 Vigilance Drive, said if it would help he would
be more than happy to allow his trees to be trimmed.
Ray Sherwood, 3618 Vigilance Drive, asked about the effect this project
would have on the neighbors if they were to extend their home with a
16 -foot addition.
Mr. McTaggart said the neighbor had no expectation of a view.
Mr. Hughes explained the ordinance.
Mr. Sherwood said his understanding of cumulative impact was that
one neighbor did something and the rest of the neighbors followed suit.
Mrs. Sherwood said the most beautiful part of their view of Catalina
would be obstructed. She said the project would block one-third of their
view. She was concerned about the domino effect and that they may have
to add to their garage to gain back the lost view.
Mr. Hughes said cumulative effect was not the accumulation of second
story houses, but rather cumulative impacts on a view.
Art Maier, 3711 Vigilance Drive, said this project would change the
aesthetic effect of the neighborhood. He said there were about 60 homes
with the same design and no second stories. He said the property at the
corner did an alternative by adding next to the garage instead. He said he
did not like the idea of an addition over the garage as it was not aestheti-
cally pleasing.
Diane Torrentera, 3610 Vigilance Drive, felt the project would cause a
snowball effect. She said if the Sherwood's built up it would affect
her view and that she could not afford to build on to her home.
-� 1-
Ginette Aelony saidshe spoke with many people in the Homeowners Associa-
tion and asked that they meditate the conflict. She said she was ad-
vised that the Association could not take a stand because it would be
legally impossible.
Mr. Hughes asked if the Council of Homeowners Associations had a
position on this issue. Jeannette Mucha, president of that Council,
said they had not studied this case because it had not been brought
before them. She said they were in the process of making recommendations
to the City Council concerning changes to the Code.
Dr. Brown felt the key point brought up tonight was that there was not
a reasonable expectation of a view as defined in the Code. He said the
critical question was whether the addition would be seen if the neighbors
built an addition at 16 feet. He said since it would not be seen, the pro-
ject was not causing a significant view impairment. He did not see this
project causing a cumulative effect, particularly since there was no view
impairment to begin with.
Regarding the trees, Mr. McTaggart felt the parties should work the
problems out themselves and that the Commission should not address the
issue.
Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown to grant the appeal
of Height Variation No. 142 based on the fact that significant view im-
pairment has not been demonstrated, that if the property at 3624 Vigilance
were built to the allowable 16 -foot height within the allowable setbacks
it would remove any -reasonable expectation for a view, and that there was
5/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-
•
no cumulative impact on a view in the neighborhood created by the proposed
addition. The Commission found as follows:
a. Notice of the application to exceed 16 feet in height has been
given to property owners with 500 feet of the lot.
b. The proposed strucutre is designed and situated in such a
manner as to minimize view obstruction.
c. A view impairment for that portion- over 16 feet high will
not significantly impair the primary view from a property or
properties identified as having a view per Section 9113 of
the Development Code.
d. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory.
e. The structure does not significantly impair a view or vista
from public property which has been identified in the City!s
General Plan, Coastal Plan or City approved viewing areas.
f. There is no significant cumulative impact caused by granting
the application.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Brown, Hughes, McTaggart, Hinchliffe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Hinchliffe advised the audience of the right to appeal this decision
to the City Council within fifteen calendar days.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously
carried, the order of the agenda was changed, and Code Amendment
No. 9 was moved to follow Grading No. 442.
RECESS
At 9:45 p.m. a brief recess was.
called. The meeting reconvened
at 9:51 p.m. with the same members
present.
GRADING APPLICATION NO. 442 Mr. Emeterio said the request was for
6461 Chartres Drive (Lot 143, 2700 cubic yards of cut in conjunction
Tract 25160) with the construction of a single family
Applicant: RST Construction residence on an uphill lot with a 40 ,
Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. R. McCue percent total average slope. He
said the southerly one-third (front)
of the site had a total average slope
of 57 percent. He said the proposal includes the creation of 1:1 and
1.5:1 slopes at the rear of the pro3ect area. He said the application
indicates a maximum cut of 13.5 feet; however, staff estimates that the
actual cut is closer to 18 feet. He said the retaining walls vary in
measurement and all are in excess of the criteria set forth by the Code.
He reviewed the heights of the retaining walls. He said the total
average slope of the driveway was 22 percent and the Code permits a max-
imum of 20 percent. He said the proposal encompasses all parts of Code
Section 9666. Additionally, he said 1) the proposed upslope retaining walls
were 12 feet in height, the Code allows one upslope retaining wall not
to exceed 8 feet; 2) the proposed downslope wall varies from 10 feet at
the garage to 5 feet adjacent to the driveway and 9 feet adjacent to
the structure entrance, the Code allows one downslope retaining wall not
to exceed 3-1/2 feet; 3) the proposed side yard retaining wall heights
range from 4 to 12 feet, the Code allows a maximum of 3-1/2 feet; and
4) the proposed walls adjacent to the driveway range in height from 5 to
nine .feet, .the.._Code-_allows a maximum of 5 feet. He said discussions were
held with the designer during with staff suggested alternatives shat
would reduce the excessive heights of some retaining walls; however,
the revised submittal showed none of the recommended alternatives. Staff
recommended denial of the application. Should the applicant wish to
pursue the project, staff recommended that the Commission direct that
the pro3ect be redesigned to be more compatible with hillside develop-
ment and conform to the criteria of the Code.
5/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-
Dr. Brown said the application states the maximum project height would
be 34 feet. Mr. Emeterio said the --applicant was confused as to where the
measurement was taken from. He said the problem has been taken care of
and the applicant understood the 30 -foot maximum height and where the
measurement is taken from.
George Nakesone, RST Construction Company, said the requested retaining
walls were due to the terrain. He said the slope on the lot was very
steep and the only way to develop the lot was to have the retaining walls
at the proposed height.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Nakesone said the existing trees
on the site would be maintained. He said the size of the proposed house
had no bearing on the walls, that cutting for the house had nothing to
do with the height of the retaining walls.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Emeterio said the applicant would
be allowed a 5 -foot foundation wall and that the 30 feet was measured from
the top of the lowest foundation wall. He said the elevation was 170 at
the peak.
Mr. Weber said from the garage floor slab to the ridgeline it was 30 feet
and a 5 -foot foundation was allowed. He said there were a number of errors
in the application.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Weber said there were construction
alternatives that would come closer to meeting the Development Code.
He said he was reluctant, however, to get into design recommendations.
Dr. Brown felt the project should be brought more into conformance.
He was concerned about putting too much on the lot and felt that did have
an effect on the number and height -of retaining walls.
After Commission discussion, Mr. Hinchliffe said it appeared to be
the consensus of the Commission that the project not be approved in its
present format. He suggested that the applicant go back to the drawing
board and discuss solutions with the staff.
Bob Tamai, contractor, said they had talked with staff. He said they
would like to have a higher retaining wall. He said they had a soils
report and that the engineer said there were no problems. He said this
was a very difficult terrain.
Dr. Brown said the Commission wished to give the applicant the opportunity
to discuss the situation further with staff and iron out the problems.
Mr. Hughes reviewed the objectives of the grading ordinance and said
the object was to keep from terracing the hillside. He said in most of
the City no development was permitted on slopes of 35 percent because they
are too steep to provide for reasonable development without terracing. He
said on existing lots of record, building was permissible but the object
was to minimize the grading and work with the land as much as possible;
to make the structure fit with the land rather than change the contours
to fit the structure. He said the Commission was aware that this was a
difficult site, but suggested that the applicant develop a structure
that was suitable for the site.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried,
the item was continued and the applicant was directed to work with staff.
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 9 Mr. Thompson said per the Commission's
Fences discussion at the last meeting, he
separated the ordinance into fences
permitted, fences permitted with a minor
exception permit, fences required, and fences prohibited. He said he tried
to define everything under a topic heading to make it more clear for every-
one to understand.
Mr. Hughes said Section 9624 should also state the Federal Government,
since they were not an agency of the State of California.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimoulsy
carried, the public hearing was closed.
5/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried,
the Commission approved the proposed amendment in the form presented
and as amended this evening, and directed staff to proceed with formal
recommendation to the City Council.
STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber said at its last meeting
the City Council took an initiative
to eliminate the Environmental Commit-
tee, which means that the Planning Commission will have the job of
reviewing and analyzing environmental impact reports (EIRs). He said
staff was looking at revising the total process and will be combining
the submittal of environmental data and the project application. He
said this would save a great deal of time and be more consistent with the
State law. He said there were two options, one for separate public
hearings for the document and the pro3ect, and the other to handle them
both at one time. He said the Council would make that decision.
Regarding a question from the commission, Mr. Thompson said at this time
staff did not have a recommendation as to which option would be best,
and that they were waiting for comments from the City Attorney
Mr. Weber said the reason they originally set up separate procedures
was to make the developer look at the environemntal issues before
designing the project.
Mr. Weber said Councilman Ryan presented a report to the City Council
on inclusionary housing, perhaps including housing in commercial
areas such as Golden Cove, Marineland, etc.
Mr. Thompson discussed the Southwest Area Planning Council flyer which
was distributed to the Commission this evening. He said the City was
co -hosting the luncheon meeting.
All of the Commissioners said they would attend.
OTHER MATTERS Dr. Brown said he understood that the
Commission would be having meetings
twice a year with the City Council.
He said the Council wished to take advantage of those months in which
there is a fifth Tuesday and meet with the individual Commissions and
Committees on those evenings.
Mr. Hughes suggested video-taping the Southwest Area Planning Council
meeting. He said one of the programs they do is called "Peninsula thew
Points on channel 3. He said the programs were sponsored by the FA,4eAcl
joo-,),,'r�04mateur Radio elvJ;6o
V
Mr. Hinchliffe said he would not be in town for the meeting on the I
22nd of May. He requested that the Commission receive copies of the /OAA_��
report.
Mr. Weber said the report was received today and he would see that draft
copies were made available to the Commission.
Dr. Brown asked about the status of the Holtzman situation. Mr. Weber
said a date for the trial was set. He said Mr. Holtzman's attorney
came into the office immediately after that to discuss ways to make the
tennis court complyjwith the Code and was going to discuss the situation
with Mr. Holtzman.
Mr. McTaggart left the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
Mr. Weber said they also met on the Jacobson case and that the preliminary
hearing was continued to allow the Court to determine whether or not
there was a case. He said Mr. Jacobson apparently was challenging the
constitutionality of the grading ordinance.
Mr. Hughes said HUD was trying to become the final arbitration committee
on zoning matters.
ADJOURNMENT At 11:30 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Thursday,
May 22, 1980, "
5/13/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-