PC MINS 19801125M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
November 25, 1980
The meeting was called to order at 7:44 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown.
PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Brown
LATE ARRIVAL: Hughes
ABSENT: None
Also present were Associate Planners Gary Weber and Richard Thompson and
Assistant Planner Sandra Lavitt.
COMMUNICATIONS Dr. Brown said the Commission had re-
ceived a letter from the applicant for
Special Animal Permit No. 13 requesting
that the item, which was scheduled on the agenda as the first item under Old
Business, be postponed until 9:00 as he was unable to be present until that
time.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried,
Special Animal Permit No. 13 was postponed until 9:00, per the applicant's
request.
CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. McTaggart proposed 4 motion,
seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt
the Consent Calendar, thereby approving
a six-month extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 8947.
Mr. Hinchliffe asked why an extension was necessary.
Mr. Weber said one of the requirements of the Subdivision Section of the
Department of County Engineer was for a mapping feature that the applicant
was having difficulty satisfying within the time allowed. He said it ap-
peared to be only a technical matter.
The above motion was unanimously carried.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38512 Mr. Thompson said this item was last
Palos Verdes Dr. So. @ Forrestal heard by the Commission on August 12,
Landowner/Applicant: Julian and 1980 at which time the public hearing
Dorothy Tielens was continued. He said the original
request was for seven lots and that the
Commission had directed the applicant
to revise the tentative map to reflect a public street instead of a private
street and to decrease the number of proposed lots to six.
Mr. Hughes arrived at 7:48 p.m.
Dr. Brown noted that the applicant for Special Animal Permit No. 13 was now
present, and he suggested that since the item had been postponed on his be-
half, the Commission consider putting the agenda item back in its scheduled
order.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously
carried, Special Animal Permit No. 13 was moved back to its originally
scheduled place on the agenda.
SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMIT 13 APPEAL
27067 Silver Moon Lane
Appellants: Richard Berg, et al
Landowner/Applicant: R. Buchholtz
Staff recommended that the Commission
tions listed in Exhibit "A".
•
Mr. Weber said that pursuant to Commis-
sion direction given at the meeting of
November 13, staff prepared a list of
conditions for the approval of the
Special Animal Permit, and that said
list was attached to the staff report.
approve the item subject to the condi-
Dr. Brown noted that the Commission received this evening written comments
from Mr. Berg concerning the proposed conditions.
Richard Berg felt the conditions proposed by staff were not specific and,
therefore, would be difficult if not impossible to monitor and enforce. He
said there was no condition regarding soil erosion and felt that issue
should be addressed. He said the conditions require that plans be submitted
to the Director of Planning for approval but do not require that the approved
plans be followed. He said the last condition suggested that the permit be
revoked if all conditions are not met, and he felt it should be revoked if
any conditions are not met.
Mr. Hughes noted that Mr. Berg in his letter stated that condition #5 would
be impossible to monitor, and he asked how Mr. Berg would propose to make
that condition more specific.
Mr. Berg suggested a requirement for removal of 50 percent of the manure
that would be generated, as discussed at the last meeting. He said he did
not have the time to discuss the matter with experts to determine exact
figures for the volume, but that he would be willing to investigate the
matter and prepare for the Commission a list of specific conditions.
Mr. Hughes said the procedure allowed staff to do a lot of monitoring. He
was concerned that the appellants' expectation of what the City ought to be
doing was beyond what the City has the power to do. He said the conditions
should be reasonable and that there should be a reasonable expectation of
compliance. He asked about Mr. Berg's concern re native vegetation.
Mr. Berg said they did not want a visual disruption of the area. He said
one of the primary concerns of the appellants was that the area remain as
natural as possible.
Mr. Hughes said the condition for fly control has been imposed on a number
of special animal permits and has worked successfully. He said it was not
impossible to monitor as suggested by Mr. Berg.
Mr. Berg felt the condition should be specific about how much spraying
should be done, what kind of spray should be used, etc.
In response to a question by Dr. Baer, Mr. Berg said it would be extremely
difficult to say what constitutes an objectionable amount of manure.
Dr. Baer noted that Mr. Berg's proposed change could work both ways. He
said perhaps it would turn out that 50 -percent removal left an objectionable
amount of manure on the premises.
Mr. McTaggart said the conditions proposed by staff will work. He said the
applicant must prepare a plan for fly control that meets the requirements.
He said leaving the conditions somewhat open allows the City greater con-
trol. The condition limiting the number of truck deliveries bothered him,
as there is no monitoring elsewhere on the street re the number of deliver-
ies allowed, i.e. moving vans, landscapers, etc. Re erosion, he said it
was controlled through the landscaping plan. He was opposed to limiting
the landscaping to native plants. He said he was concerned about the neigh-
borhood and the environment but did not feel the applicant should be over-
burdened with unreasonable conditions.
11/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
I
Bill Cords, 26912 Diamondhead, concurred with Mr. Berg's comments. He said
right now the neighborhood does not have excessive flies or chemical sprays
polluting the air. He noted his wife's severe allergy problems and said
right now there are no health problems in the area, no -traffic problems, no
rodent problems, and no undesirable odors. He did not feel that the appli-
cant's rights should supercede the rights of the 50 people who signed the
petition opposing the project. He questioned whether one person had the
right to do something to which so many people objected.
Mr. Hughes said it appeared Mr. Cords was suggesting that the Commission
disregard the rights of the minority and allow a petitioning group to rule.
He said the City would impose conditions to monitor any potential problems
and to take corrective measures if problems occur. He said the process for
obtaining such a permit was written with a tremendous amount of community
input in order to develop an ordinance that would allow the use of horses
to continue in this community where said use has gone on for years. He said
the permits have been found to work satisfactory with little or no complaint
after seven years of experience.
Paul Wong, 4814 Falcon Rock Place, said there was no way to hide the stable
and particularly the corral because of its size. He said a pastural setting
might be pleasant to observe from afar, but not from 100 feet away. He asked
that the Commission deny the permit.
Dick Buchholtz, applicant, said the appellants have expressed a lot of fear
and concern about erosion control. He said he,has-checked with staff about
grading, etc., and noted that anyone looking at the canyon would see things
that have been done which are much more severe than what he proposed. He
said he had considered splitting the lot at one time but said that would
have had adverse effects on the canyon. Re native plants, he noted that
there were orange and lemon trees planted all over the canyon. He said
some of the 50 people objecting lived a block away. He said no one was more
concerned about fly control than he was. Re large vehicles, he said this
morning on his street there was a great big motor home and that a few doors
up the street there was another motor home and that no one objected to those
but were objecting to a delivery truck which was much smaller. Re rodents,
he said they were already in the area, that there were some next door to him
now. He said they breed in ivy, not necessarily in stables. He said there
were horses already within 400-500 feet of some of the objecting properties.
He said the closest house to his property was 300 feet away.
Dr. Brown noted that the lot size was large enough to allow a lot split as
Mr. Buchholtz said he had considered, and he wondered about access, etc.
Mr. Weber said without looking at the site in detail, he felt there was a
good possibility that the lot could be split.
Mr. Hughes proposed changing condition #11 to read "any conditions" instead
of "all conditions."
Mr. McTaggart proposed changing condition #2 to read "all permitted animals."
He said he felt comfortable limiting the number of horses rather than the
ownership and agreed with the staff condition. Re native plants, he felt
staff's condition was reasonable and pointed out that staff may find that
something other than a native plant is better for erosion control. He was
satisfied with the staff condition for manure removal.
Mr. Hughes wondered if condition #9 was in conflict with #5, limiting truck
traffic and yet requiring removal of manure.
Mr. Weber said technically it could present a problem.
Mr. McTaggart did not feel that condition #9 should be imposed. He said
the City does not restrict visitors for any other type of application.
Dr. Brown noted that the monitoring mechanism was on a complaint basis and
asked if there was any desire to require specific inspections every six
months or so.
11/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
Mr. Hinchliffe felt the complaint basis was reasonable.
Dr. Baer said he was concerned about the visual aspect and suggested speci-
fically regulating the roof, walls, fences, etc., with regard to permitted
colors, materia da d sign ort atnt e . Wrcuements conform to the natural
,t a- ,�,4m .
t 1 c -tA glaring I e uD Ion
r4
.?Jccontours and t re tA!anvy,gla:i g in e -up ion of view. He felt the
structures could be camouflaged, thereby reducing the impact.
af
The other Commission noted that the City did not have an architectural com-
mittee or any regulations concerning design review, but did agree that the
landscaping could be controlled so as to reduce the structure's visual impact.
Mr. McTaggart said they should not create shade in the corral area.
Mr. Weber recommended an addition to condition #6 to read'_"The goal of the
landscape plan shall be to minimize visual impact of the stable/corral area."
Dr. Baer suggested that condition #6 also say "preferably emphasizing native
shrubs" instead of "including native shrubs."
Mr. McTaggart felt the condition was adequate as proposed by staff. Mr.
Hughes concurred.
Dr. Baer said condition #6 should require maintenance of the landscaping.
The other Commissioners concurred.
Mr. McTaggart proposed adding another condition requiring that all plans
submitted by the applicant and approved by the Director of Planning be kept
in the file and become a permanent record of the City. He further suggested
eliminating condition #9.
Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, approving Special
Animal Permit No. 13 subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A" as amended
this evening.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Baer, McTaggart, Brown
NOES: Hinchliffe
ABSTAIN: Hughes
ABSENT: None
Mr. Weber reminded the Commission that this was an appeal and that the mo-
tion should be to approve or deny the appeal.
Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to deny the appeal,
thereby upholding the approval of Special Animal Permit No. 13 subject to
the conditions found in Exhibit "A", amended as follows:
Condition #2, changed to read "all permitted animals";
Condition #6, changed to read "fully landscape and maintain";
Condition #6, add "The goal of the landscape plan shall -5—eto
minimize visual impact of the stable/corral area.";
Condition #9, eliminate;
Condition #11, changed to read "any conditions of approval":
Add condition requiring that "all plans submitted by the appli-
cant including those approved by the Director of
Planning be kept in the file and become a permanent
record of the City."
Mr. McTaggart and Dr. Brown agreed to amend the motion to include that the
decision was based on the following findings:
1. That the requested animal or animals, at the location
proposed, will not jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise
be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
general welfare; and
11/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-
2. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the animal or animals requested without
material detriment to the use, enjoyment, or valuation
of property of other persons located in the vicinity of
the site, and the keeping of animals as requested is an
appropriate use of the site; and
3. That any other variance from the terms or requirements
of this ordinance will not be materially detrimental to
the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property or other
persons located in the vicinity and will not jeopardize,
endanger, or otherwise be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or general welfare.
The motion to deny the appeal was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Baer, McTaggart, Brown
NOES: Hinchliffe
ABSTAIN: Hughes
ABSENT: None
Dr. Brown advised the audience of the right to appeal this decision to the
City Council within fifteen calendar days.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38512 Mr. Thompson reviewed the original re -
Palos Verdes Dr. So. @ Forrestal quest and location of the project. He
Landowner/Applicant: Julian and said at the meeting of August 12, 1980,
Dorothy Tielens when this item was last heard, the Com-
mission directed that the applicant make
certain revisions to the tentative map.
He said the project (which includes the corner parcel) has been redesigned
incorporating a 26 -foot wide public street with a 34 -foot right-of-way, and
an increase in lot sizes to conform to the Code, resulting in a six -lot sub-
division instead of the seven lots originally proposed. He said staff appre-
ciated the applicant's efforts in negotiating with the owner of the corner
parcel, as the result is a much improved project consistent with the General
Plan. He said due to the several delays caused by coordinating the proposal
and revising it, a decision by the City Council must be made prior to Decem-
ber 26, 1980. Staff recommended that the Commission review the information
presented and recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative tract
map, per the draft memo and subject to the conditions of the draft City
Council resolution.
Mr. Hinchliffe was concerned with the wording of condition #11.
Mr. Thompson said the condition was included in the County comments and was
written as it was received from the County.
Mr. Weber explained that the City Engineer wished to have a condition to
allow for easements if they become necessary for sewer requirements. He
said he preferred to leave it open-ended in case the water company or Flood
Control needed an easement. He said the condition could be changed to say
only that easements were tentatively required subject to review by the City
Engineer.
Dr. Brown noted that this was a continued public hearing and re -opened the
public hearing.
Dorothy Tielens, applicant, said her only concern with the conditions was
with #22, and that she spoke with staff about those concerns yesterday. She
felt the six -lot subdivision could not justify that kind of expense. She
said by incorporating the corner property she gained one-half lot and she
did not feel that supported the additional expense of improving the right-of-
way. She felt she should go on and obtain approval of the map and then dis-
cuss the kinds of relief available. She said without the corner parcel they
11/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-
would only have four lots and would need only a parcel map, which would be
less time consuming and less costly, and she would then be responsible for
only improving the Drive along her frontage.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was closed.
In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson said he spoke with
the Public Works Director, who guessed a ballpark figure of $25,000 for
street improvements.
Mr. Hughes asked if there were other mechanisms that could be used such as
sharing the cost between the City and the applicant.
Mr. McTaggart did not feel a small subdivision like this should have to pay
for the realignment of a major street.
Mr. Hinchliffe noted that the applicant was not being treated any different
than any other developer. He said the project across the street was paying
for improvements to the centerline. He felt, however, that since the trade-
off was including the corner parcel in this development, perhaps there was a
way to require this applicant to pay one-half of the cost.
Mr. Weber suggested that the Commission not change the condition but rather
recommend that the City Council look closely at condition #22. He said he
already suggested to the applicant that she generate some numbers to show
that it is a hardship.
Dr. Brown suggested they include in their memo to the City Council recom-
mending approval of the tentative map a statement to the effect that if
there is sufficient data to indicate hardship in meeting the condition,
that the City Council look closer at it.
The other Commissioners concurred.
Mr. McTaggart suggested that the memo be prepared and reviewed by the chair-
man before going to the City Council.
Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to recommend
to the City Council adoption of the draft resolution approving Tentative
Tract Map No. 38512, subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A", with the
wording of condition #11 amended as suggested by Mr. Hinchliffe.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Dr. Brown advised the applicant to supply data for the City Council meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 60
Mr. Thompson reviewed the request and
VARIANCE NO. 48
the project location. He said the Com -
North side of Silver Spur Road
mission heard this item on October 28
@ Crossfield Road
at which time the public hearing was
Landowner/Applicant: R. Quigley,
continued and the applicant was directed
M. Bruning, J. Moss (Devco)
to redesign the project to conform more
closely with the City's Grading Ordi-
nance. He said the applicant was
directed to reduce the steepness
of the created slopes and provide a greater
buffer between the residential uses
and the proposed development. He said
there was also concern with the
proposed circulation. He said in the re-
vised plans the applicant chose
to consolidate the buildings along Silver
Spur Road and located two rows of
outside parking below the buildings. He
said the results of the changes
were more natural appearing slopes in the
11/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-
rear, more open space between the development and the homes above, plus a
taller and more intensive appearing development. He said staff analyzed
the project and was in favor of the general concept as proposed with some
changes. He said the three main concerns were with the project mass, the
height, and the circulation. Staff felt that the project as revised may
be too intense for the.site due to the additional square footage proposed
and the increase in building height. Staff recommended that the height of
the buildings be reduced, that the square footage of the project be reduced,
and that the internal and external circulation be revised.
Mr. McTaggart asked if there was a Peninsula Center Master Plan available
for the Commission to look at in order to see how this project relates to
what is across the street.
Dr. Brown noted that this was a continued public hearing and re -opened the
public hearing.
Matt Bruning, 727 Silver Spur Road, said the density of this site was one-
fifth that of the proposed Hahn project, and one-third that of the Cal Fed
building. He presented a vicinity map to the Commission and submitted it to
staff for the file. He said the increased square footage was because of the
additional costs of subterranean parking plus the problem of stabilizing the
soil in the east end of the project. He said the additional costs amounted
to approximately one-half million dollars.
Mr. McTaggart asked if the applicant considered the potential of connecting
the driveway with the adjacent project to the east.
Mr. Bruning said the ownerships of the two properties -were -separate parner-
ships.
Mr. Hinchliffe asked about the cross-over traffic problems.
Mr. Bruning said the solution would be to one-way the traffic.
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was continued.
Mr. Hughes felt something should be done to mitigate the density, the massive-
ness of the project. He was also concerned about the traffic flow, particu-
larly with the two adjacent curb cuts. He agreed with staff's concerns.
Mr. Hinchliffe felt the site could handle the size of the project, but agreed
with the rest of staff's concerns.
Mr. McTaggart concurred that the square footage of the project was not out
of line, but felt that something could be done to reduce the impact.
Dr. Brown concurred. He said the circulation problem must be handled. He
was not opposed to the square footage but felt it should be scaled appro-
priately, particularly the three financial buildings. He said het would
agree to the concept but felt that the impact should be reduced.
Mr. Thompson said if the height did not exceed 30 feet from any point, staff
would have no problem with the height.
Dr. Brown thanked Mr. Thompson for an excellent reply in his letter respond-
ing to the concerns expressed by the Director of Planning in Rolling Hills
Estates.
RECESS
At 10:35 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 10:45 p.m.
with the same members present.
11/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-
VARIANCE NO. 56 Ms. Lavitt said the applicant requested
4128 Palos Verdes Drive South a change of vehicular access into an
Landowner: Monika Roberts existing garage which would violate the
Applicant: Environmental Designs section of the Code which requires direct
access garages to be 20 feet from the
front property line. She said the appli-
cant also requested the construction of a six-foot high wall within ten feet
of the front property line and an eight -foot high lattice -type overhang trel-
lis which would extend to within six feet of the front property line. She
said the entire neighborhood was legally nonconforming with substandard size
lots and that there were only ten -foot front yard setbacks on many of the
lots. She said the 1200 square foot residence was currently vacant and under
extensive repair and renovation, and that the garage had at some time in the
past been converted to a family room with the garage door removed and a per-
manent wall installed. She referred to the four required variance findings
and staff's responses to each of them, as stated in the staff report. Staff
recommended that the Commission approve the request for a direct access to
the garage and deny the request for six-foot fencing and trellis overhangs
within the front setback, per the draft resolftion.
Public hearing was opened.
Jerry Compton, Environmental Designs, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, pre-
sented plans showing the trellis. She said the purpose of the trellis was
an architectural feature to define the entryway and provide some shade and
wind cover, and to provide overhead lighting. Re fencing, he said the extra
18 inches in height was requested for noise and privacy. He said the street
was a major arterial and that because of the lot size, a private play area
was a problem. He felt the lot size represented an extraordinary circum --
stance. He felt a yard was a primary use of the site, particularly with
children. He said there was a three-month delay because of the error in the
initial site review process. He suggested that there•be a checklist at the
counter to avoid problems in the future. Re the wall, he explained that he
was considering the possibility of a berm and asked if that would be accept-
able by Code.
Ms. Lavitt said the,maximum height for a combination wall was 42 inches.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. McTaggart was concerned about off-street parking and felt the project
should be redesigned within the limitation of the law. He was not in favor
of direct access.
Mr. Compton again noted the size of the lot. He said indirect access would
use up much of the yard space. He said with the addition to the home there
would be no more lot coverage than what is allowed.
Mr. Hinchliffe said there were a lot of people on that street with the kind
of access requested by the applicant. He did not feel that approval of
this request would jeopardize the Commission's standards.
Dr. Baer said the applicant was making an improvement. He said many others
in the area had a ten -foot front setback.
In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Compton said the lot was
70 feet by 70 feet.
Mr. Hughes discussed the setback and open space requirements, the height
limitation, and the size of the lot. He said considering the value of the
land it was impractical not to expect that the applicant would want to put
a suitable structure on it. He agreed with staff's recommendation.
Dr. Brown concurred.
Mr. Hinchliffe noted that since the minimum lot size in the RS -5 zoning dis-
trict is 8000 square feet, a lot this size could only be created under a
Residential Planned Development.
11/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-
Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution
P.C. No. 80-25, thereby approving the garage access and denying the wall and
trellis, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", and based on the
required findings as stated in the staff report.
Dr. Baer moved to amend the motion to exempt the wall and trellis from the
original motion. His motion died for lack of a second.
The vote on the above motion was as follows:
AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Brown
NOES: McTaggart
ABSENT: None
Dr. Brown advised of the fifteen day appeal period.
STAFF REPORTS There was discussion re the Commission/
staff dinner meeting, scheduled for
December 3. Dr. Brown said because of
Hanukkah he would rather come after the children's dinner and suggested
dinner at 8:00 at the Acapulco Restaurant. Mr. Thompson was to make the
arrangements.
Mr. Weber said staff was recommending that the Ordinance Subcommittee review
the concept of banning recreational vehicles in the City, per discussion be
the City Council.
Mr. Hughes said the proposal by Mrs. Mastous which was presented to the City
Council was that recreational vehicles be banned from private property. He
felt staff should obtain the City Attorney's opinion on the subject before
discussing it any further to see if such an ordinance is possible. He
pointed out that in a lot of cases the recreational vehicle is the primary
vehicle.
Mr. McTaggart felt that a recreational vehicle would need to be defined for
such an ordinance, as it could include a wide assortment of vehicles.
COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes said it was not possible to
require Cable TV to put on Channel 18
because they cannot, since they must
comply with FCC regulations and put stations on in the order in which the
stations approach the Cable TV company. He said if they were to drop one
channel, they must take the next one in line, and that Channel 18 is a rela-
tively new station. He said there were other alternatives available such as
the free-standing tubular towers which are mounted adjacent to the house.
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:47 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday,
December 9, 1980, at 7:30 p.m.
11/25/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9-