PC MINS 19770823M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
August 23, 1977
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman McTaggart.
PRESENT: Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart
ABSENT: Bacharach, Blue
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner
Gary Weber, and Assistant Planner Keith Turner.
MINUTES APPROVAL On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by
Mr. Rosenberg, and unanimously carried
the minutes of the meeting of August 4,
1977, were approved as submitted.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried,
the minutes of the meeting of August 9, 1977, were approved as submitted.
COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Finn Sorensen, 5519 Elmbank Road,
and Tom McCary, 5507 Elmbank Road,
expressed concern about the height vari-
ation notification procedure. They were opposed to the recent granting of
Height Variation No. 67 at 5513 Elmbank, which they were not aware of until
after the appeal period had ended.
Mr. McTaggart advised them to address the City Council either in writing or
at the next Council meeting.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32744 Director Hightower reviewed the five
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 16 provisions (private open space, plumbing
Porto Verde Apartments and water piping, restriciton of adult
Applicant: John Tretheway (for section, deferred maintenance, and plan
Porto Verde Associates) for refurbishing) on which the Commission
conceptually approved the project at the
meeting of June 28. She reviewed the
applicant's response to these items, as outlined in his letter and in the sub-
mitted plans, and she also reviewed staff's recommendation on each item. She
further reviewed and gave staff's recommendation on other items of concern,
including: recreation area, tenant rights, sound attenuation, storage, parking,
and swimming pool fencing.
Mr. McTaggart noted that the public hearing was closed, but asked the appli-
cant if he wished to respond to -the staff report.
John Tretheway discussed the private open space, the Fire Department recommen-
dations, the plumbing report which was still forthcoming, and the request for
a deferred maintenance breakdown.
Mr. Rosenberg explained that in the deferred maintenance breakdown, the Com-
mission was looking for a two-part breakdown indicating 1) a complete list
of what the applicant would be doing prior to the conversion and 2) an
analysis of proposed maintenance fees spelling out what items must be covered
and to what extent. He said to submit an expense budget (which would include
carpets, diswashers, etc.) and a capital improvement budget (which would in-
clude any structural improvements).
Mr. Hughes said among the letters received this evening, there was one from
the Health Department concerning the water seepage problem. He wondered
what was being done to correct this situation.
Mr. Tretheway said the last method used to correct the problem did not work
and they now must seek another method.
Mr. McTaggart was concerned about whether or not the refurbishing of the
plumbimg will include the mains outside of the building.
Otis Tabler submitted copies of-c4°letter from the Tenants Association to
the Commission, staff, and applicant. At Mr. McTaggart's request, he read
the letter aloud, which was (in part) a request to re -open the public
hearing for further testimony.
,'Mr.Hughes asked if the letters before the Commission represented the cur-
rent status, and Director Hightower said yes.
Mr. Hughes did not feel that the statements made in Mr. Tabler's letter were
consistent with the letters from the County agencies, and did not see any
merit in re -open kng.! the public hearing to allow testimony on the water
seepage problem, as it has alreday been addressed at previous meetings.
Mr. Rosenberg concurred.
Director Hightower pointed out that the option of bonding was available to
the Commission to insure the applicant's compliance.
Mr. McTaggart explained to Mr. Tabler that the public hearing would not be
re -opened as there was not a ma3ority of the Commission in favor of doing so.
Mr. McTaggart said that re private open space, prior to further meetings on
this project, he would like staff to evaluate the plans according to Code
and report to the Commission. Re plumbing and water piping, he would like
the report given to the Commission for review prior to the next meeting.
Re restriciton of adult section, he would like this in writing for the Com-
mission's review prior to the next meeting. Re deferred maintenance and the
plan for refurbishment, additional requested information should be submitted.
;Re the recreation area,he would like definite plans to be submitted for the
tennis court including the Fire Department recommendations for the stair-
way and access. Re swimming pool fencing, he would like a report indicating
why the fencing was not required at the time of construction and what would
be done about it. Re the water seepage problem, he would like the problem
resolved and a letter from the Health Department indicating that it is no
longer a nuisance.
The other Commissioners concurred with Mr. McTaggart.
Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to table this item
until the information as summarized by Mr. McTaggart has been presented to
staff and the Commission.
The motion was amended by Mr. Hughes and seconded by Mr. Rosenberg to direct
that all material be submitted in sufficient time to allow for proper review
prior to the meeting.
Roll call vote on the above motion, as amended, was as follows:
RECESS
AYES: Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bacharach, Blue
At 8:53 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
with the same members present.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. NO. 33358 Mr. Weber reviewed the direction given
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 25 to the applicant at the last meeting
SE corner of Palos Verdes Drive by the Commission and the new concept
South and Seahill Drive I which was submitted for consideration
Applicant: Mercury Enterprises in response to the Commission comments.
(for Western Brass Dev. Co.) He made comparisons between this plan
and the one originally submitted re
streets, lot coverage, height of homes,
recreational area, and the landscaped area. He indicated the four section
drawings which had been submitted by the applicant, and felt that perhaps
they did not reflect the true line of sight.
Corwin Eberting, architect representing the applicant, said the tennis courts
have been dropped considerably and the fence is well below the sight line
P.C. MINUTES -2- 8/23/77
from the Drive. He said the asphalt paving has been greatly reduced, that
there would be a lot of landscaping, lawns, -and open space. He said that
the entire development has been lowered as much as possible, and they were
trying to step the homes down the slope.
The Commission agreed that this design was the best submitted so far and
met their objectives. They further agreed that, if necessary, they would
rather see additional grading to make the development lower than lose the
existing vista.
I
Mr. McTaggart felt the tennis court lighting would have to be done so that
there is no glare allowed out onto the Drive.
Mr. Rosenberg said he would like to see what the sight lines would look like
using a two -degree angle through the middle of lot 14, 9, and 5, and indica-
ted such on the plan.
Mr. Weber suggested taking the viewing sections from the westbound lanes
rather than the eastbound lanes. He asked the Commission if they wished to
see a more refined plan (including grading, etc.) at the next meeting.
Mr Hughes felt that would be appropriate.
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried,
this item was continued until the above suggestions have been accomplished.
GRADING APPLICATIONS #106, 147, 108 Mr. Turner reviewed the background of
3292, 3294, 3296 Via Campesina this request and the direction of the
Appliant: Robert Hellweg (for Commission at its last meeting. He
Alex Horowitz & Smith Realty) reviewed the changes and additions to
the proposed plan, including the road,
the rear slope, the upper slope, and
the landscaping. He indicated on the plans the presently proposed retaining
walls and those previously approved by the Commission.
Robert Hellweg, applicant, said staff had letters from the engineer and the
geologist. He felt he could accomplish the walls, the slope, etc., within
6-7 weeks if permission is granted.
Jim York, Voce -York Construction Company, said permission to encroach on to
his property will not be given, and that he would put up a fence if the ap-
plicant attempted to come onto his property again. He expressed concern that
the applicant was not being punished in any way for violating the law with
illegal grading.
Mr. McTaggart said he had the same concern about someone violating the Code
and instead of being prosecuted, they can re -apply for a revision to the
approved plan.
Tony Wiezorek, attorney, referred to a letter he sent to the Commission last
week, and stated that the applicant was prepared to restore the property owned
by Mr. Voce and Mr. York to its original condition.
Pair. Rosenberg felt the Commission could not discuss the proposal or take
any action until the conflicts between the adjoining property owners have
been resolved.
Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, that this matter be
tabled until any problems other than those with which the Commission is con-
cerned have been resolved.
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the motion was amended
to include that the proper erosion control measures be taken after two weeks
if the matter was not resolved.
Roll call vote on the above motion, as amended, was as follows:
AYES: Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bacharach, Blue
Mr. Wiezorek asked for clarification."
P.C. MINUTES -3- 8/23/77
Mr. McTaggart explained that if Mr. Voce and Mr. York do not permit°the.
applicant to go on their property, a different plan must be submitted.
Alex Horowitz spoke briefly to the Commission about the project, and urged
that the matter be resolved as quickly as possible.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32977
Mr. Weber described the project, its
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 27
location, area description, zoning,
Palos Verdes Drive South and
proposed open space, recreational facil-
Clipper Road
ities, landscaping, and topography. He
Appliant: Herbert Angel
said the six major considerations were
conformance with the General Plan, con-
formance with the Development Code and
zoning map, access, grading, archaeology,
and view/visual characteristics.
Hereferred to the chart included
in the staff report and indicated the pro-
posed grading on the plans, stating
his concerns re the grading. He showed
a view analysis and said although
there will be view obstruction, staff has
determined that based on the pad
elevations, anything at sixteen feet would
obstruct views.
Mr. Rosenberg asked how a conventional development would compare to the pro-
posed residential planned development.
Mr. Weber felt there would be access problems, and that this plan conforms
to the existing characteristics. He said the project received a Negative
Declaration, and that proper public notice has been given. Staff recommends
opening the public hearing, discussing the major issues, and continuing the
item to the next meeting.
Herb Angel, 4273 Dauntless, said he has no objectives to following Mr. Weber's
suggestions and lower the pad elevations. He said he has met with the ad-
jacent homeowner association for review of the plan and they are in favor.
He said he would submit a letter from the president of the association, at
the Commission's request. He also pointed out that they could build five
homes with a conventional development.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was continued to another time.
Mr. Hughes said he would like to see the applicant follow staff's recommen-
dation on stepping down into the slope, and he questioned the proposal to
plant Eucalyptus trees which, because of their height and density, would not
aid in preserving views. Otherwise, he had no conflict with the plan and
felt the residential planned development concept was better than a conven-
tional development on such an unusual lot.
Mr. McTaggart concurred with Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Rosenberg again brought up his concerns about a residential planned de-
velopment on this site, because of its small size.
Director Hightower pointed out that there was a natural water course going
through the property, the site was partially bounded by non-residential
uses such as the fire station, the vacant 7 -Eleven store and service station.
Mr. Hughes said the residential planned development is providing open space
and recreational facilities which would not be available if the homes were
built on conventional lots.
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried,
the item was continued until the next regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT At 10:50 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried,to adjourn to a work
session on Thursday, September 8, 1977,
immediately following the Southwest Area Planning Council meeting.
P.C. MINUTES -4- 8/23/77