PC MINS 19780214M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
February14, 1978
The meeting was called to order at 7:42 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard. Roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Rosenberg,
Chairman McTaggart
ABSENT: None
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon W. Hightower, Associate
Planner Gary Weber, and Assistant Planner Keith Turner.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by
Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously
carried, the minutes of January 19,
1978 were approved, with a correction made to the spelling of Mr.
Hinchliffe's name on page 1.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously
carried, the minutes of January 24, 1978 were approved, with a correction
on page 2, changing the Condition #9 to Condition #10. -[The conditions
have been renumbered, and Staff has determined that #9 is the correct
designation.]
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 33093 Associate Planner Weber indicated the
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 29 Planning Commission had given this
Applicant: So.B&Y- Eng. project conceptual approval, on the
Landowner: 0. K. Tingle condition that certain aspects of the
project be clarified and/or refined.
New plans had been submitted by the
applicant, making some modifications to the subterranean garage and pro-
viding three alternative approaches to access to the garage. It was
Staff's recommendation that the Commission approve the Conditional Use
Permit subject to the conditions provided by Staff and that the Commission
recommend approval of the tract map to the City Council. Mr. Weber
further indicated that the engineer for the project had requested a
change in Condition # 21 on the tract map resolution; this change would
only clarify the condition, with no change in the intent.
Mr. Weber suggested a minor change to Section , of the Conditional Use
Permit Resolution, to read "...an existing private drive, which are or
will be improved and designed to carry both the type and quantity of
traffic to be generated."
Russ McGuire, South Bay Engineering, spoke for the applicant, indicating
they are in total concurrence with the Staff Report, provided the change
on Condition # 21 is incorporated. In response to questions from the
Commission, Mr. McGuire indicated he would prefer either alternative #1
or #2; discussed the possibility of installing guard railing along the
top of the retaining wall; clarified questions regarding visibility of
the entryways under each alternative; and discussed the types of land-
scaping proposed, including low shrubs (but not so as to create a
hedge effect) to screen the wall, interspersed with trees, such as
acacias, pines, etc.
O.K. Tingle, 26846 Basswood Avenue, landowner, indicated that on the north
side of the condominium building the balconies are recessed; Mr. Tingle
inquired whether the Commission would be favorably disposed to allowing
them to extend the balconies 8 feet into the setback in order to increase
the interior unit size.
Jack Remington, 304 Vista Del Mar, Redondo Beach, architect for the
project, indicated the balcony space just meets the private open space
requirements of the Code; extending the balconies in this manner would
increase the unit size and would increase views from the units, but would
not impair views from any other units.
In response to questions from the Commission, Associate Planner Weber
indicated the Staff has not reviewed this proposal for extension of the
balconies; however, the Staff would have difficulty in allowing this
kind of encroachment without a variance. It was his suggestion that the
applicant could adjust the lot line in order to eliminate the need for a
setback encroachment. Moving the lot line further out would move the
line into another zoning district; however, Mr. Weber indicated that, as
long as the units themselves do not encroach ionto another zoning district,
this situation would be acceptable. In fact, there are currently lots
created that have two kinds of zoning designation on them (e.g., open
space and residential zoning.)
During Commission discussion, it was pointed out that there is already a
lot on this property that encompasses two different zoning districts.
Concern was expressed that approving such an encroachment might set a
precedent; it was suggested that the City Attorney be consulted prior to
approving the lot line adjustment. It was suggested that the purpose of
rear setbacks is to maintain distance between lots; however, since there
is a considerable distance to the next lot, this would cause no problem.
It was moved by Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe that the
Commission approve the extension of the lot line to the rear of the
condominium units four feet into Lot 26. Motion carried, with Mr.
Rosenberg voting in opposition.
With regard to the driveway grading, several Commissioners expressed
concern with problems of visibility and the potential for dangerous
conflicts between cars entering and leaving the complex. Following a
discussion of the possibility of extending the lot line at the driveway
in order to widen the driveway and allow for the installation of an
island in the center of the driveway entry to separate in -coming and
out -going traffic, it was suggested that if Alternative #3 would help
ameliorate the access problem, the Commission should not be too concerned
about trying to keep the retaining wall under three feet.
It was the concensus of the Commission that Alternative Access #2 be
used, but that the entry be widened to 301 in order to accommodate a
51 center barrier in the entry. It was further agreed that a guard rail
be required on top of the 7' wall.
It was also the concensus of the Commission that Staff revise Condition
#9-d to include in the CC&Rs a provision that all new units ( except the
condominiums) share in the maintenance of the common roadway and gate
(i.e., the one shared with the Seagate condominiums) in an amount
proportionate to the number of units in the new development.
It was further agreed that Condition #21 of the tract map resolution be
changed, as requested by the project engineer, to read:
21. A separate final map should be filed for the proposed
condominium lot to prevent mixed developments on a single map.
The condominium tract map should be filed as a phase of
Tentative Tract No. 33093. Should the condominium lot be the
First Phase, the remainder of the Tentative Map should be shown
as a "Not a Part" with a note of non-compliance to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Should the condominium lot
be the Second Phase, then it should be a division of Lot 25 as
created by the First Phase.
P.C. MINUTES -2- 2/14/78
It was moved by Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, that Planning
Commission Resolution #78-27, approving Conditional Use Permit #29, be
adopted, along with the exhibit attached thereto, with changes made to
Section 4 (as recommended by Staff) and to Condition #9-d (as approved
by the Commission). Motion carried unanimously.
It was moved by Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes that the
Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract
#33093, subject to the conditions included in Exhibit "A", with a
change in Condition #21, as requested by the applicant.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 33206 Associate Planner Weber indicated that,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 31 pursuant to the Commission's request,
APPLICANT/LANDOWNER: revised site/grading plan and section
S &,S construction drawings had been submitted; however,
the results of the additional testing
for radiation hazard have not yet been
received. It was the recommendation of the Directq# of Public Works that
the secondary roadway in the southeast portion of the site be widened to
24' and that the width of parking bays on public streets be 10'. It was
Mr. Weber's recommendation that the Commission grant conceptual approval
to the design concept, on the condition that the approval would be
sub3ect to compatibility of the project design to radiation exposure limits
which the Commission determines to be acceptable, based upon the results of
further radiation studies.
The public hearing was re -opened.
George Putnam, Vice President of S & S Construction, indicated the
radiation studies had been delayed by inclement weather. Mr. Putnam
further indicated that the revised plans reflect the Commission's concerns,
and that S & S can accommodate a 24' roadway, as recommended by the
Director of Public Works. It was his request that the City's records be
changed to list S & S Construction, not Palos Verdes Properties, as the
landowner.
There being no further individuals wishing to testify,'iI , t' was moved by
Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, to
continue the public hearing on this item.
It was the concensus of the Commission to accept the recommendation of the
Directcr' of Public Works and require a 24' roadway and a 101 turnout.
Following -agreement by the Commission that conceptual approval prior to
the receipt of radiation studies would be premature, Mr. Putnam requested
that this item be tabled until the results from the studies were
available.
Accordingly, it was moved by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and
unanimously carried to table consideration of Tentative Tract No. 33206
and Conditional Use Permit No. 31 until such time as the applicant is
able to present the results of radiation studies.
REVISION TO C.U.P NO. 23, Associate Planner Weber briefly reviewed
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32991 the applicant's request for reconsider -
APPLICANT: Western American ation of the Planning Commission decision.
_Dovelopment-Cor'p-.- to deny a revision to the conditions
of approval for Tentative Tract 32991
and C.U.P. No. 23. Specifically, the
applicant wishes Condition #1 revised. It was Mr. Weber's recommendation
that, since the revision proposed by the applicant does not change the
intent of the original condition, Conditional Use Permit No. 23 be so
revised.
It was moved by
but that it be
second.
Mr. Hughes that the Planning Commission rehear this item,
considered under new business. Motion failed for lack of
P.C. MINUTES -3- 2/14/78
•
•
It was moved by Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and
unanimously carried to rehear the item at this time.
Several Commissioner's indicated that, while they disagree with some of
the claims made in the applicant's letter, they would be willing to
allow a slight change in the condition to permit -phasing of the project.
Don Dawson, South Bay Engineering, represented the applicant, and
reviewed the developer's concerns re bonding, lot sales, financial
constraints, etc. It was his opinion that the wording of Condition #1
is of extreme detriment to the developer, but is of little or no benefit
to the City.
Concern was expressed by several Commissioners that major portions of
the development would be completed and the impact of these homes felt
on the adjacent roadway prior to the installation of offsite improvements
to the roadway. It was indicated that there was no objection to phasing
per se, but there is concern with lot sales and individual development.
Specifically, it was several Commissioners}' concern that the City
would be inundated with variance requests from individuals purchasing
the lots but dissatisfied with the grading plans originally approved
by the City under the original tract map application.
In response to the Commission's concern, Mr. Rosner, of Western American
Development Corporation, indicated that the CC&Rs for the property would
require the new owners to build in accordance with the grading plans
approved by the City. Furthermore, the off-site improvements would
also be phased.
It was moved by Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes that the
Planning Commission approve the change to Condition #1 of Conditional
Use Permit No. 23 as follows:
"No occupancy permit shall be granted for any structure and no
parcels, lots, or portion of the site shall be separately sold or
encumbered, until approval of the Director of Planning, upon and
the finding that all of the common area and off-site improvements
in the workable phase of which such structure, parcel, lot or
portion as a part are completed to the extent that the dwelling unit
or lot is accessible aed-li�tel�le,-aid-all-deaell�g-halts-aye
st�l�e�a��lallp-de�eleged--Fall-b�lld�x�e�-�aall9-ee�e�ed} ; -aa-pew-agp�eved
plans- A bond or other guarantee of substantial completion of all
4v-_:6]6*ng7ttn,i-ts;, common areas and off-site improvements may be
accepied by the City in lieu of substantial completion.
and that the following Condition be added to the Resolution:
"Upon the sale of each unimproved lot, the buyer shall
be made aware that all grading, and structure shall conform
to the plans approved as part of this Conditional Use Permit.
This shall be accomplished through the use of a statement (to
be approved by the Department of Real Estate) to be signed by
the buyer. All building and grading plans must be submitted
to the Director of Planning for approval."
Motion was carried, with Mr. Hinchliffe abstaining and Mr. Rosenberg
voting in opposition.
RECESS At 10:10 p.m., Mr. McTaggart called
a brief recess. The meeting was
reconvened at 10:17 p.m., with the same members present.
P.C. MINUTES -4- 2/14/78
EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT TO Assistant Planner Keith Turner
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 15 reviewed the sanitation District's
Applicant: L. A. Sanitation request for a 180 day extension of the
District Conditional Use Permit to allow for
completion of the building permit
process and their request for a minor
amendment to the C.U.P. to accommodate the relocation of a wet well from
the front of the building to the west side of the structure. Relocation
of the wet well would increase the overall efficiency and safety of the
station and would lessen potential impacts on neighboring residences. It
was Staff's recommendation that the Sanitation District's request be
granted.
John-,Fppicifi, of the Sanitation District, indicated the structure would
be completed within 10 months of the start of construction.
No other individuals were present to speak on this issue.
It was moved by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach that Conditional
Use Permit No. 15 be extended for 180 days.' motion carried, with Mr.
Hinchliffe abstaining.
It was moved by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart that the Planning
Commission amend Conditional Use Permit No. 15 as recommended by Staff,
to accommodate the relocation of the wet well. Motion carried, with
Mr. Hinchliffe and Mrs. Bacharach abstaining. I/
GRADING APPLICATION NO. 246
29624 Grandpoint Lane
Applicant: Burrell, Ltd.
Landowner: Edward Dworak
property.
Z3,
Assistant Planner Keith Turner summarized
the request for approval for the
grading of approximately 1400 cubic yards
of earth in order to stabilize some
existing slopes and the house pad on the
Roy Bayer, 2733 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, designer of the project,
indicated that the stabilization of the house pad is a standard require-
ment of the soils engineer, based on the fact that the lot had been disked
in the past (for weed abatement purposes); it was the requirement of the
soils engineer that the soil be recompacted to a depth of three feet.
The applicant, Tim Burrell, indicated he had nothing further to add to
Staff's evaluation.
There being no further comments from the applicant and no further
individuals wishing to speak on the proposal, it was moved by Mr.
Hinchliffe, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried to close
the public input on this matter.
It was further moved by Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and
unanimously carried, to approve Grading Application No. 246.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32110
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 33
Applicant/Landowner:
The Burrells
s
would create 11 lots, most with
proposed.
Assistant Planner Keith Turner
reviewed the request for an approximately
29 acre Residential Planned Development
in an RS -2 and OH zone on property
surrounding the upper Nike Site at the
end of Crenshaw Boulevard. The project
swimming pools, and 2 with tennis courts
Mr. Turner indicated Staff is currently conducting a detailed visual/view
analysis to determine the impact of the'proposal on the nearby Del Cerro
area. Mr. Turner identified Staff concerns with the project as being:
the provision of common open space with respect to the City's requir;mehts
(applicant is requesting that the area in open space/hazard zoning be
P.C. MINUTES -5- 2/14/78
1
0
credited for partial common open space requirements_`); view obstruction;
�
access to the parcels; the compatibility of the park with adjacent uses;
the use of septic tanks instead of sewers; impact of the project on
Altamira and Kelvin Canyons.
Public hearing was opened.
Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant, the applicant, presented a model of the
site and made the following points: (1) They are requesting approval
for a maximum external footprint and maximum heights for each structure;
their corporation would then custom build all the houses within the
approved "envelope" to the specifications of each individual buyer and
within the limitations of the CC&Rs; (2) The applicant was concerned with
water run-off, so he attempted to decrease the amount of hard surfacing
on the property by making the houses two-story or -split level, by
shorter,iing, the road, and eliminating sidewalk'g; (2) They would use dense
landscaping (fire retardant, erosion controlling plantings) and careful
design of drainage to slow the velocity of water run-off to minimize
damage to the canyons; (4) They have worked extensively with the adjacent
neighbors to reduce view obstruction both by the structures and by the
landscaping planned, reducing the heights of structures wherever possible
and giving attention to the height of landscaping. View corridors will
be preserved; (5) Since there is already a 4.4 acre park and much land
in open space/hazard, it was his opinion that no additional open space
is necessary; (6) 5.5 acres of the site will be developed, with over 21
acres in open space; after reviewing the portions of the Code, Mr. Burrell
concluded that it is within the discretion of the Planning Commission
to allow private areas in excess of the required 400 square feet per bed-
room to be included in computing common open space, even though the area
is still in private ownership; (7) The Directo ' j-:�'of Public Works has
preliminarily expressed no concerns with access to Crenshaw Boulevard;
(8) Geologists for the project indicate there will be no adverse effects
from the extension of Crenshaw Boulevard.
Also speaking in favor of the application was Lorna Burrell, applicant.
Woody Hays, President of the Del Cerro Homeowners Association, expressed
concerns with the project (as outlined in his letter of February ;,a=), as
follows: (1) view obstruction; (2) potentially dangerous access to the
project off Crenshaw, which will be compounded by the speeding problem along
that portion of Crenshaw-, -r(3) lack of demonstrated necessity of extending
of Crenshaw Boulevard, failure to consider alternatives to such an
extension, and the possibility of allowing this extension of Crenshaw to
become a precedent for further development pressures in the area nad
further extension of Crenshaw Boulevard. Mr. Hays also presented a series
of photographs of the area taken February 14, 1978.
Phil Kennedy, Vice President of the Del Cerro Homeowners Association,
supported the comments made by Mr. Hays and inquired whether the
grading/pads/street construction would all be completed at the same time.
Mr. Kennedy indicated there will be a great deal of emotionalism attached
to the issue of the Crenshaw extension, even if the geology reports
indicate there is no hazard.
Director of Planning Hightower pointed out that both the General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance indicate residential zoning further down the Crenshaw
right-of-way, so Crenshaw will probably be extended anyway.
Doris Stoskopf, 30415 Amber Sky, expressed concern that the EIR for the
project only dealt with 11.2 acres.
Also expressing concern with the project was Cleve Stoskopf, 30415 Amber
Sky.
Sherie Conrad, of the Del Cerro neighborhood, inquired whether it was safe
to extend Crenshaw and what type of geology reports would be required.
There being no further individuals wishing to give testimony, it was
moved by Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously
carried to continue the public hearing on this item.
P.C. MINUTES -,6- 2/14/78
It was the concensus of the Commission that the project geologist be
present at the next meeting on this project and that the Commission be
able to review the geology reports in time for the next meeting. Mrs.
Bacharach requested a rough figure on how much other land is below this
parcel that would conceivably take access from Crenshaw. Concern was
expressed with the geology studies for the road and the use of septic
tanks.
STAFF REPORTS Staff requested clarification from the
CODE INTERPRETATION Commission regarding the applicability
of one of the Code standards regarding
height of a structure. Specifically,
the Staff requested direction regarding an addition which will attach a
detached garage (separated from the house by a small embankment) to the
house. Although the house and garage are an existing situation and the
proposed addition will not exceed the 16 -foot height limitation, the
connection of the structures with the addition causes the overall height
limit of thirty (30) feet to be exceeded.
The majority of the Commission felt that such an addition should be permitted
without a variance, but there was some concern that this should not be
allowed on new structures, but only on houses existing at the time of the
adoption of the Development Code. It was agreed to submit the question
to the City Attorney as to whether it would be permissable to allow
such additions only on previously existing structures.
COMMISSION REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
6:00 p.m. at Ante's Restaurant, 729
Mrs. Bacharach give a brief report on the
Planning Commissioners Institute in
Oakland.
At 12:55 a.m., it was moved and
seconded and approved to adjourn the
meeting to Wednesday, February 15, at
S. Palos Verdes, Los Angeles, Ca.
P.C. MINUTES -7- 2/14/78