PC MINS 197803280
M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
March 28, 1978
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman McTaggart.
PRESENT: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart
ABSENT: None
Also present were Associate Planner Gary Weber, Assistant Planners'Keith
Turner and Charlie Jencks.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by
Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously car-
ried, the minutes of the meeting of
March 14, 1978, were approved with the following amendment: page 3, para-
graph 8, should read: "Because of additional setbacks on Lots 4 and 5,
the Commission felt there was compatibility with the park."
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33206 Mr. Weber said at the last meeting the
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 31 Commission discussed grading, roadway
San Pedro Hill -Crest Road (East) width, and parking requirements; but
Applicant: S&S Construction Co. because studies were not yet completed,
the Commission was unable to discuss
radiation. He referred to the letter
from the consultant (re series of measurements) and additional attachments
which provides useful information re radiation. He showed drawings of the
pad elevations. Staff felt that based on this information, it appeared
future residents would not be subject to hazardous radiation. Staff recom-
mended that conceptual approval be granted if the concerns of the Commission
were satisfied, and that staff would provide a draft resolution and condi-
tions at the next meeting.
The public hearing was re -opened.
George R. Putnam, S & S Construction Company, said per instructions the
consultant was asked to show the worst case. He said measurements were
taken at the -fence line, eight feet above grade, and that at only one place
did it read 4.9 micro -watts per square centimeter, which was the highest
level measured.
B. F. Chartier, Ultrasystems, Inc., said the main beam of the radar is 36
feet above grade. He felt that the power would automatically turn off if
the antenna was depressed below its normal limits, but said he would check
to be sure. He described the measurement technique and said what was shown
in the report was the highest measure taken in all cases. He said for the
plan presented, he was satisfied with the safety aspect. He said inter-
ference could be eliminated with a filter.
On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously car-
ried, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hughes said it appeared that the average power density was well below
the current standard in the UniteetStates and well below what the experts
with whom he spoke felt the new standard would be. He said personally he
was satisfied that it was safe; but had concerns about possible inter-
ference. He felt undergrounding of the cable would help, but that it would
be a continuing problem for some of the homes and difficult to solve. He
felt future homeowners should be warned of this possibility.
Mr. Rosenberg felt that based on the information provided, the radiation
levels should have no effect, but he was concerned about notification if
there were to be a change in the equipment.
Mr. McTaggart said he was satisfied that the radiation levels were safe,
but felt the interference problem would be severe and that future owners
should not only be warned about the problem, but should be corrected by
the developer for a period of a year after construction, as he felt the
problem was the responsibility of the developer. He felt this should be
one of the conditions. He said it could be done through the homeowners,
association and the money reimbursed to the applicant if not used during
one year.
Mr. Hinchliffe was not sure a condition of this nature could be placed on
the applicant.
Mr. Weber said this type condition probably was under the jurisdiction of
the Commission, but that there were reasonable limitations governing con-
ditions and he was not sure if this would be considered a reasonable con-
dition or what amount of money would be reasonable.
Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that staff ask the City Attorney if this is a
reasonable condition and, if so, what a reasonable figure would be.
Mr. Weber reviewed the grading plan which was the same as shown on Febru-
ary 14. He said he felt it was a workable plan and that taking all things
into consideration, it was a good plan. He felt the project met the intent
of the Development Code.
Mr. Rosenberg was concerned about the amount of dirt being moved and felt
it was excessive and an attempt to optimize the views of the units.
Mr. Weber said the grading could be reduced by creating steeper slopes or
incorporating 3:1 slopes throughout which would push the project farther
out.
Mr. Hughes said the alternative was to give up some of the views and build
on natural grade.
Mr. Putnam pointed out that the grading would not be visible from Crest
Road.
Mr. McTaggart felt the overall effect of the proposed grading plan is a
more natural pleasing result, which is the intent.
Mr. Hinchliffe concurred with Mr. McTaggart.
Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion to conceptually approve the grading plan.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to grant concep-
tual approval of the project.
Mr. McTaggart said a plot plan should be submitted and that the final
approval should be subject to the ridge line and pad elevations conforming
to what is now presented; and that if they do not conform, review and
approval should be required by the Planning Commission.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart
NOES: Rosenberg
ABSENT: None
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32110 Mr. Turner reviewed the staff report
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 33 and said the remaining major issues to
Crenshaw Boulevard across from be discussed were view obstruction/
Seacrest Drive (Upper Nike Site) visual analysis, grading, gating and
Applicant: The Burrells park security for Lots 3 and 4. He
showed the photos and reviewed the
view analysis, stating that staff was
concerned about the massiveness of the structures on Lots 6 and 7 and
would recommend a reduction in height to mitigate problems. Re the visual
3/28/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
analysis, he said the prime concern was preserving the ridges in as
natural appearing state as possible. Staff recommended no fencing or
structures in specific areas and that the approved plan become a part of
the CC&Rs. He said staff had no significant concerns with the grading
plan. He said the Director of Park and Recreation has indicated a
security park was not being considered for the site but that he would
like to be a party to final fence design and landscape approval. Mr.
Turner said the sheriff would also like to be involved in final approval.
He said the Director of Public Works would like to maintain the easement
status of the access road to the park, and that he is checking on the
erosion problem discussed at the last meeting. He said the Director of
Public Works is now aware of the Commission's concern re the downslope
unit potential and its traffic impacts on the intersection, and that their
motion of request for the Traffic Committee involvement will be sent to
the City Council. He showed the latest improvement plan incorporating
revisions to this point. Staff recommended that the Commission grant con-
ceptual approval.
Public hearing was re -opened.
Tim Burrell said if the proposed homes on Lots 6 and 7 were lowered, homes
on Lots 3 and 4 would still block the view; therefore, there was no view
obstruction based on the criteria for height variations. He said he would
prepare a fencing plan to preserve ridges. He said the proposed height of
the tennis court fence on Lot 5 was ten feet.
RECESS At 9:50 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 10:00 p.m.
with the same members present.
Mr. Burrell said there were other two-story homes in the Del Cerro area.
He said the ridge line elevation of Lot 7 was 1201 feet and of Lot 6 was
1197 feet.
George Brandt, 5403 Seacrest, felt the proposal would directly impact his
view.
Arthur Brabbs, 202 Seascape, was concerned about the land slide area.
Woody Hays said the two-story homes were further up on Oceanaire, that
there were none in the immediate surrounding area.
Mr. Turner explained that staff's concern with the two-story homes was
due to their bulk rather than view obstruction.
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously
carried, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Rosenberg suggested that sixteen feet be added to the proposed pad
elevations to determine the maximum ridge elevations and that there be a
condition that the homes on Lots 6 and 7 not exceed this fixed elevation.
He tried to compute what the fixed elevation would be.
After discussion on the above suggestion, it was the consensus of the
Commission to let staff determine the fixed elevation. After further dis-
cussion, Commissioners Bacharach, Hughes and Chairman McTaggart felt there
was no view obstruction. Commissioner Rosenberg felt there was view ob-
struction and Commission Hinchliffe felt there was partial obstruction.
Mr. McTaggart did not feel the Planning Commission should impose a height
limit unless it is consistent with the overall policy of the City. He said
there was no information that there would be view obstruction and he felt
the Commission should not be artitrary.
The consensus (by a 3-2 vote) was to not condition the project with a
height limit and that the Director of Planning and staff work with the
Director of Park and Recreation to establish finished height and location.
The Commission had no concerns re grading. There was concern expressed
about the road and the consensus of the Commission was for the dedication
of the street to the City.
3/28/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
0
Mr. Turner said the Director of Park and Recreation conceptually approved
gating for Lots 3 and 4 and that staff would like to coordinate specifics
and themes.
Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to conceptually
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 33 and direct staff to prepare a draft
resolution and appropriate conditions.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart
NOES: Rosenberg
ABSENT: None
Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to conceptually
approve Tentative Tract Map No. 32110 and direct staff to prepare a reso-
lution and conditions to be forwarded to the City Council for tentative
approval.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart
NOES: Rosenberg
ABSENT: None
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8947 Mr. Turner proposed minor modifications
Division of land into two parcels to conditions #2 and #22 of Exhibit "A"
Lot 2, Parcel Map 2703 (99 Vander- as follows: #2, line 2, should read
lip Drive - Portuguese Bend) "...issuance of any residential build -
Applicant: Narvan Corporation ing..."; and #22 should read "...is
conditioned that all eligible subse-
quent owners of any portion of Lot 1
submit an lrrevokable application for membership to the Portuguese Bend
Community Association."
Mr. Rosenberg suggested changing condition #16 to read that the owner sign
a waiver to agree to go underground and participate in a district.
Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously
carried, to adopt Resolution No. 78-29, thereby approving Tentative Parcel
Map No. 8947, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A", as amended tonight.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2373 Mr. Jencks reviewed the staff report
VARIANCE NO. 20 and gave the background of the pro -
6347 Tarragon Road posal. He said the variance was for
Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Tolliffe lot size. He discussed the location,
zoning, and the average lot size in
the immediate vicinity. He reviewed
the required findings. Staff recommendation was for denial based on staff's
inability to make findings A and D.
Public hearing was opened.
William Tolliffe said the adjacent lots are about 15,000 square feet, that
three other lots of the same size were subdivided under the County regula-
tions. He felt these were extraordinary circumstances. He felt the pro-
ject was not contrary to the General Plan as the density would not be sig-
nificantly increased.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car-
ried, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hughes said he was opposed to forming another substandard lot and
could not make finding A and did not think the project met the intent of
the General Plan.
Mrs. Bacharach felt a long flag lot was against the kinds of things the
City has been trying to achieve.
Mr. Rosenberg said looking at the particular area and the subdivisions
which have already taken place, he did not feel one more would make any
difference.
3/28/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-
0 0
Mr. McTaggart agreed with that position. He said the history of the area
was of some importance. I
Mr. Hinchliffe said the proposal did not meet the 20,000 square feet of
the width requirement.
Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to deny Tentative
Parcel Map No. 2373 and Variance No. 20 because the appropriate findings
could not be made.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes
NOES: Rosenberg, McTaggart
ABSENT: None
Mr. McTaggart advised the applicant of his right to appeal this decision
to the City Council within fifteen calendar days.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 8744 Mr. Turner reviewed the staff report
Portion of property at 3200 Palos for this proposed division of land.
Verdes Drive West He discussed the access, zoning, and
Applicant: L. & J. Miller topography. He reviewed the chart in
the staff report evaluating the pro-
posal with respect to the standards in
the Development Code. Staff had no concerns regarding the project and
staff's recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions listed
in Exhibit "A" attached to the draft resolution.
' 30009
Jack Remp, 940 -8 -Via Victoria, was opposed because of the nature and
irregularity of the street. He said he was concerned about traffic, access
for future lots, view obstruction, and mainly the safety of the street. He
suggested that the street be widened.
David Whitmore, 30020 Via Victoria, also expressed concern about the nar-
rowness of the street and view obstruction.
Mr. Weber said the street was currently wide enough to meet existing street
standards and was under the minimum trips per day in the General Plan,
Gene Ezell, 30014 Via Victoria, said there was a lot of bike and foot traf-
fic with children going to school. He was concerned that there was no side-
walk on the Miller's side of the street.
Mr. Weber said the way the conditions are set up it provides additional
right-of-way to make improvements if they are deemed necessary at a later
date.
Mrs. Bacharach felt since the Commission has been informed of a problem,
it should be passed along.
The Commission felt a letter should be sent to Public Works with copies
to the City Council.
Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unani-
mously carried, to adopt Resolution No. 78-30, thereby approving Tentative
Parcel map No. 8744, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", in-
cluding the addition of sidewalks in condition #12.
Mr. McTaggart suggested that the letter be sent to the City Council rather
than Public Works. He agreed to draft the letter.
COMMISSION REPORTS Mrs. Bacharach said she checked into
the geologic tours of the Peninsula
given by Habor College (after reading
)�,
about it in the newspaper). She spoke with Mr.'4!T&r. who offered a tour
free of charge if the Commission was interested. She said he suggested a
bus so they could all ride together and that she felt perhaps the cost of
the bus could be shared if the staff, commissions and councils of all of
the Peninsula cities participated.
3/28/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-
Mr. McTaggart suggested that Mrs. Bacharach discuss this with Director
Hightower to determine if she is interested and if there was money in the
budget to cover the expense.
Re the Coastal Commission hearing on the City's Coastal Plan, Mrs. Bacharach
felt some of the commissioners had not seen the coastline of the City. She
suggested a letter be sentyto the State Commissioners inviting them for a
tour. ,� y &,
ADJOURNMENT
At 1:20 a.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday,
April 11, 1978, at 7:30 p.m.
3/28/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-