PC MINS 19760210M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
February 10, 1976
(4)
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
February 24, 1976
The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified
School District Building, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Vice -Chairman Blue.
PRESENT: Blue, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Trefts
ABSENT: Shaw
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Associate Planner Larry
Davis.
MINUTES APPROVAL
On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by
Mrs. Trefts and carried, the minutes of
January 27, 1976 were approved as presented.
GRADING APPLICATION Mrs. Hightower indicated revised plans had
30549 Oceanaire been submitted, changing the rear yard por-
Applicant• Rein Kuhr tion of the pad to a 2:1 slope. However,
this only changes the amount of fill by
about 428 cu.yds.; it does not change the�
area to be graded. Staff has checked their calculations and have no changes to make;
however, there are still discrepancies between the applicant's calculations and the
staff's. Staff still recommends denial on the basis of excessive grading for a
single family use. Mrs. Hightower further indicated that the applicant's handout
sheet refers to cubic yards of grading, not to the square footage, which is what the
formula (and staff's calculations) refer to.
The applicant, Rein Kuhr, indicated that, using the Development Code formula, he still
calculates an average slope of only 24.95%. Mr. Kuhr expressed concern that he had
not been contacted by staff to arrange a meeting to resolve calculation discrepancies.
There being no one else present to speak to the matter, the following Commission dis-
cussion ensued: (1) The proposed plan conforms to the terrain of the property.
(2) The grading required for the pool and the turn -around should be subtracted from
the application, since the turn -around is a safety requirement and the swimming pool
can be constructed at any time. If these items are omitted, the grading is not ex-
cessive. (3) Grading is excessive. The applicant is attempting to put a house on
a lot which is not suitable for that particular plan. (4) The Commission should de-
velop a policy regarding how strictly it wishes to adhere to the quantitative criteria.
(5) The quantitative criteria should not be rigidly adhered to in cases where there
would not be scarring of the terrain.
Mr. Rosenberg made the following motion, which was seconded by Mrs. Trefts: It is
moved that, in view of the discrepancy between the applicant's and staff's calculations,
the Commission take this matter under advisement, review it prior to the next regular
meeting, and render a decision on this matter at the earliest possible time. The
motion carried, with Mr. McTaggart voting in opposition to the motion.
Mr. Kuhr indicated he would submit a list of certified calculations from a registered
engineer to resolve the discrepancy.
GRADING APPLICATION Mrs. Hightower reviewed the request for
Crestridge Road approval of grading which has already been
Applicant: Cayman Development accomplished on the 9+ acre site. It was
staff's recommendation that the grading
plan be approved, subject to the Director's
approval of a landscaping and irrigation plan. Mrs. Hightower further recommended
that the Commission give consideration to different grading on the slope on the eastern
boundary as the property abuts the L.A. County radio towers.
Don Owen, representing the applicant, presented pictures of the site taken during
the summer of 1974 and indicated that the basic grades that existed at that time
are very similar to those that currently exist -on the site. In addition, all grading
was done under the supervision of licensed engineers and was then inspected and ap-
proved by L.A. County.
It was moved by Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mrs. Trefts, that the grading application
for Cayman Development Company be approved, with the condition that the present
66% slope be reduced to a maximum SO% or 2.1 slope, and that landscaping satisfactory
to staff be provided in that area. Motion failed on the following vote:
AYES- Rosenberg, Trefts
NOES, Blue, McTaggart
It was moved by Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, that
the matter be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the staff, i.e.,
subject to the Director's approval of a landscaping and irrigation plan and that the
approved landscaping plans be referred back to the Planning Commission for information
purposes.
RECESS
GRADING APPLICATION #7
6895 Crest Road
Applicant R $ L Harris
A brief recess was called at 9:00 p.m.
The Commission reconvened at 9:07 p.m. with
the same members present.
Mrs. Hightower summarized the request for
approval of grading for a house, yard, and
tennis court. It was staff's recommenda-
tion that the tennis court portion of the
grading be denied.
John Chavanne, representing R & L Harris, indicated the following: (1) He would like
to have the discrepancy between the applicant's and staff's calculations of the
average slope resolved. (2) The four foot retaining wall is required as part of the
tennis court improvement. (3) The value of the lot lies in the fact that it can con-
tain a full sized tennis court, however, the tennis court and swimming pool would not
be built immediately.
Commission discussion included the following: (1) The lower figure for average
slope submitted by the applicant was probably arrived at by using only the buildable
area of the lot, rather than the entire lot. However, even using the applicant's
lower figure, the project would still be in excess of that allowable under the Develop-
ment Code and would still require the Commission's determination. (2) Allowing
deviation from the ordinance for a tennis court does not represent a hardship caused
by the topography of the lot.
It was moved by Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. McTaggart that Grading Applicati6n
#7 be denied based on its non-compliance with the criteria contained in Section
9667(e) of the Development Code.
With the approval of Mr. Rosenberg and the second, the motion was amended to read
that Grading Application #7 be denied based on its non-compliance with Criteria A
(i.e., grading is not necessary for the primary use of the property), its non-compli-
ance with Criteria E, and the fact that the excessive amount of grading is for the
tennis court, an amenity to the property, rather than for the primary use. Motion
carried unanimously.
TREE CONTROL ORDINANCE
ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
It was the Commission consensus that April 13
be set for the first review of the prelim-
inary draft of a Tree Control Ordinance.
Mr. McTaggart reported that the sub -committee
had not yet been able to meet.
ADJOURNMENT At 10:10 p.m. it was moved, seconded and
carried that the meeting be adjourned to
Tuesday, February 17, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Blvd., for a joint meeting with the City
Council on the Coastal Specific Plan.
P.C. -2- 2-10-76