PC MINS 19841023MINUTES
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
October 23, 1984
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. at Hesse Park Community Building
at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard by Vice Chairman McNulty.
PRESENT: MCNULTY, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE , BROWN (7:10 p.m)
Also present were Associate Planner Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Alice
Angus, Assistant Planner Gary Pedroni, Assistant Planner Phyllis Parker
and Secretary Ann Brenesell
CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes of 10/9/84
It was the consensus of the
Commission to hold the minutes
until the end of the meeting.
(65)
Grading Application No. 748 After a brief discussion by the
Commission members relating
to the importance of the submittal of the survey map and the reasons the
application expired, a motion was made by Mr. Von Hagen to approve Grading Appli-
cation No. 748 affirming the October 25, 1983 Planning Commission decision;
seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Conditional Use Permit No. 92
Environmental Assessment No. 454 The staff report of 10/9/84
was presented by Assistant
Planner Gary Pedroni which
recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit 92 and final Negative
Declaration for Environmentai Assessment 454 subject to conditions as
stated in Exhibit A.
Mr. Pedroni capsuled the reasons for the request: 1) to construct a maintenance
facility for consolidation of supplies and 2) to place a 15,000 gallon undergound
gasoline tank and pump station on the Salvation Army property for servicing
of staff cars. Staff also proposed hours of maintenance operation as 8 a.m. to
5 p.m.
General discussion ensued amongst the Commission members concerning debris on
the east side of the building and the possibility of that area being used as an
illegal dumping site; the possibility of vehicular maintenance and the proximity
of the gasoline storage to the dining room and its potential hazard.
Vice Chairman McNulty opened the public hearing.
The following residents spoke in opposition to the item:
Mr. Robert King, 30764 Via La Cresta, referred to his letter of record
addressed to Sharon Hightower dated 9/26/84 and outlined those concerns.
Minutes
7O/2]/84
Page Two
Mr. Frahklyn Weiss, 30711 Via La Cresta, represented the La Cresta
Homeowners Association and Stated his main concern related to no vehicle
maintenance and wished DUOe be allowed and also a condition be stipulated
of no refilling Of tanks and vehicles after BzOU p'm'
Speaking in favor of the Conditional Use Permit was Mr' Thomas HdUse,
Architect for the Salvation Army who Stated the tank was sized to allow
for the best price On gasoline, and to save time in the daily refueling of
80-75 staff caps and that there was no intention of vehicle maintenance.
Mr. Von Hagen moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Dr. Brown and
passed unanimously.
Concerns Of the CV00i3SiOn centered around including a condition of no h»dv work
or automobile maintenance, removal of debris and vegetation around the perimeter
of the property; restriction of maintenance operation, and restriction Of maintenance
equipment(lifts), and limiting refueling hours from 8 a.m. - 5 p.0.
Dr. Brown moved that staff return at the next meeting with a resolution
for Conditional Use Permit 92 and Environmental Assessment #454 including
conditions of approval; seconded by Mrs. Qrtolano, and passed unanimously.
Grading #743
The staff report was presented
by Associate Planner Steve
Rubin and gave a brief background,
recommending approval of Grading Application NO. 743' He stated the
application met the intent Of the Code; however, fencing around the tennis
court would require a Minor Exception Permit.
Commission concerns centered apOUDd the maximum fencing allowed for recreational
Vs85 and tennis court lighting.
Staff stated lU feet is the maximum for fencing and a Conditional Use Permit
is required for lighting.
The item was opened for discussion.
Mr' Lamar Robinson, 1455 Crenshaw Boulevard, Architect, represented the applicant.
He stated there is a deed restriction regarding building height VM the
property.
Mrs' Drtolano moved to approve Grading No. 743° seconded by Mr. McNulty and
passed unanimously.
Sign Permit #220 A brief staff report and history
was presented by Assistant Planner
Phyllis Parker which recommended
approval Of Sign Permit #220 with revised plans to include proposed alterations.
Photographs were displayed. Alternate considerations were noted.
Speaking in favor of approval of the non conforming I.D. sign was Mr' Harry
H8idenrfCh who represented Coast Property Management, Inc. He said the
reason for the lapse in time for submitting the application was because of the
Sale of the shopping center to Sierra Trust who was unaware of the
amortization situation until recently.
Minutes
10/23/84
Page Three
His reasons for retention of the sign were: aesthetics and the prohibitive
cost for alterations. He said lowering the sign would increase vandalism.
General comments by the Commission supporting the City's sign ordinance centered
around concern relative to allowing non -conforming signs and the need to
justify exceptional circumstances and the issue of the Eastview moratorium on
signs and thus establishing a future precedent.
Comments favoring the application related to the need for the reader
board as a community service and the question of conformity with significant
impact to tenants and the importance of signs to attract customers.
Brief discussion ensued relative to exception versus precedent and the
integrity of the sign code.
Dr. Brown moved to deny Sign Permit #220 thus requesting the applicant to
return with an application bringing the sign into conformance with the
Development Code within 60 days; seconded by Mrs. Wike, and passed on a
4 to 1 roll call vote with Commissioner McNulty dissenting.
Grading No. 752 -Appeal The staff report was presented
by Assistant Planner Phyllis
Parker which recommended
denial of the appeal to Grading Application #752, upholding staff's denial of
the application.
Alternatives discussed included the use of dark plaster which acts as a
solar collector and a pool cover.
Further discussion ensued relative to paint versus dark plaster; the intent
to use a collector system for other than heating the pool, whether there was
adequate roof space; reduction of panels, pool cover as an alternative to
retain heat, and the number of cement foundations and their depth for the
proposed mountings.
Mr. Jim Mitchell, 1332 N. Miller Street, Anaheim, represented Control Energy
Engineering for the applicant and spoke in favor of the appeal. He
discussed the benefits of a solar system as determined by the size of the
swimming pool and collectors. The Oreck's pool is 540 square feet. His
recommendation was a 10 collector panel system. Thus, he said the roof would
hold only 6-7 panels and with prevailing Rancho Palos Verdes weather
conditions, this was not a optimum alternative. He said 10 panels ensured
80 degree pool temperature from April to October. The 10 collector
system, with racks weighing 2 lbs per square fo"ot and cement foundations
with 144 supports may even provide,stability to the slope, he said.
When asked what six panels would provide, Mr. Mitchell could not answer.
Mrs. Ortolano moved to grant appeal for Grading 752; seconded by Mrs. Wike.
After discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
Minutes
10/23/84
Page Four
Commission members supporting denial of Grading #752-Appeal spoke about the use
of 6-7 panels on the roof combined with use of dark plaster and a pool cover
(hybrid system) as an alternative.
I-?TL,j,v, -JvAAe-
Ane cov"unissie" r quoted facts and figures from the Gas Company relative to
the cost of heating a pool and supported the 10 collector system to eliminate
the heating cost.
A motion was made and seconded to deny Grading no. 752-Appeal and carried on
a 3 to 2 vote.
Roll Call: Yeses: McNulty, Von Hagen, Brown
Noes: Ortolano, Wike
Variance 105
30825 Marne Drive The staff report of 10/23/84
was presented by Assistant
Planner Gary Pedroni which
recommended adoption of Resolution P.C. 84-27 approving Variance No. 105.
The retaining walls were discussed and staff stated that with the proposed
terracing effect of 3 112 feet findings could be made to approve the variance.
Commission concern centered on the adequacy of a visual inspection versus a
foundation inspection and asked for clarification of the mitigating measures
stated in the staff report.
Mr. McNulty moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Mrs. Wike.
Arik Abdalian, 30825 Marne Drive, applicant, spoke about the reduction of
the wall for safety reasons and that the wall between his house and the
neighbor's was not for retaining purposes.
With no one else present to speak to the item, Mr. McNulty moved to close
the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Von Hagen.
Mr. McNulty moved to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 84-27 approving Variance No. 105,
seconded by Mrs. Ortolano, and passed unanaimously.
Grading No. 648
28182 & 28202 Palos Verdes Drive East The staff report was presented
by Associate Planner Steve Rubin.
He gave a brief background and analysis which recommended approval of Grading
No. 648 in concept directing the applicant to work with staff to revise the
proposal to achieve a more natural finished project. Photos were displayed
and discussed.
Commission discussion ensued around clarification of "natural" contours; erosion
of tree roots at the top of a slope; impact on Nakanishi's residence and the
replacement of the deteriorating redwood headerboard and the appropriateness
of the Planning Commission review of the plans rather than staff.
Minutes
10/23/84
Page Five
David Breiholz, 1852 Lomita Bouelvard, Lomita, concurred with the staff
recommendation. However, he asked that "more natural" be defined.
19aStaff was concerned that surface �f resemble the natural contour.
Mr. Breiholz was asked whether stablity would be reduced if there was a
more natural contour; from 2:1 slope to 3.1. Mr. Breiholz deferred to his
geology and soils consultants to address that question.
David LaSalle, 321 E. 2nd Street, Los Angeles, Attorney, represented Mr.
Nakanishi and stated the applicant's request as an urgent need to stablize
the slope and expressed concern regarding the expense involved.
The Commision acknowledged concern for stability but iterated that economics
is not the issue.
Mr. Richard Merriam, 40 Eastview, Rolling Hills, spoke in favor of Grading
No. 648 and stated the plan was adequate and it would improve stability.
Mr. G. S. Kovacs, 11430 Ventura Bouelvard, Studio City, Civil Engineer
spoke about the need for buttress fill and that the proposed drawing
maintained the minimum depth of fill necessary to attain stability
Staff stated the approval must be from the Commission. Staff's concern
related with filling in natural drainage and the City's goal should attempt
to be something less obtrusive.
Mrs. Ortolano moved to approve Grading Application No. 648 with conditions;
1) that City geologist be present and inspect excavation and fill/compaction
activities, and 2) newly created slopes/surfaces be landscaped; seconded
by Mr. McNulty and passed unanimously.
Minor Exception Permit No. 162 - Appeal
1832 Redondela The staff report was prnted
by Associate Planner *-1-eiW` n`gus
which recommended denial of the
appeal. Staff noted that this was one of very few direct access garage
Minor Exception Permits based on unusual circumstances and positive impact.
Mr. Stan Fleishman, 1832 Redondela spoke in favor of the appeal based on the
fact that he felt the garage could not handle two cars and a boat and also that
vehicles would be parked in the shortened driveway.
Mr. Gary Makale, 1826 Redondela spoke in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. Makale was asked if he had any objection to using a roll -up garage door
as a condition of: approval.
He replied no.
Dr. Brown moved to deny the appeal of Minor Exception Permit 162 upholding staff's
decision with the condition of approval being a roll -up garage door; seconded by
Mr. McNulty and passed unanimously.
5
Minutes
10/23/84
Page Six
REPORTS
Staff None
Commission The Commission discussed the
necessity of a Commission member
attending the City Council
meetings when an appeal was being presented. It was agroad-that a. CG=issioner
wou+d when the decision w nous eme and that they would-99eak 'AW,
-)-0
ADJOURNMENT
rnuRrrTTnN
11:54 p m.
If Commission Chairman attends City Council meetings, he represents the
Planning Commission. Any Commissioner can attend City Council meetings and
speak to any item but they must disclaim that they are speaking as an
individual and not as a representative of the Planning Commission unless
they were appointed in lieu of the Chairman.
91