Loading...
PC MINS 19810623� F/ MINUTES (Jq) City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting June 23, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Richard Thompson, and Assistant Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt. CONSENT CALENDAR At the request of Mr. Hinchliffe, the minutes of the meeting of June 9, 1981 were removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed as the last item under New Business. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the Consent Calendar as amended was unanimously passed, thereby approving the following: 1) minutes of the meeting of May 26, 1981; 2) minutes of the meeting of June 15, 1981; 3) time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 27; 4) amendment to Condi- tional Use Permit No. 69; and 5) Grading Application No. 507. VARIANCE NO. 67 Director Hightower said the Commission approved this item in concept at its last meeting. She said staff prepared the appropriate resolution approving the project for Commission action this evening. She referred to Exhibit "A" which was distributed to the Commis- sion tonight. Dr. Brown asked about the remainder of the fence/wall being cut to 42 inches. Director Hightower said the applicant said he would do that and the City will enforce it. Mr. Hughes noted that the condition of Exhibit "A" dealt with the lighting concern. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 81-46, thereby approving Variance No. 67 based on the findings stated in the resolution and sub3ect to the condition of Exhibit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to anneal this decision to the City Council within fifteen (15) calendar days. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 14369 VARIANCE NO. 68 Silver Spur & Silver Spur Applicant/Landowner: S. P. Devco concerns were also noted in the Ms. Lavitt said the Commission had con- tinued the public hearing on this item at its May 26 meeting, at which time the Commission requested additional infor- mation on the issues noted in the staff report. She said responses to those staff report. She said attached to the staff report were two sections of the Subdivision Map Act that referred to the denial of a map and required a parcel map for the proposal. Staff recom- mended that- the Commission approve the -P'_4r-69i__mp�p. and variance _with�ff - he combination of lots 5 and76 and a restricted --U��-s�e7no—te:-i�l—zi�ed - on allnatural created slopes greater than 35 percent as shown on the -approved tenta- tive plan. Public hearing was opened. No one was present to speak. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Ms. Lavitt said the applicant was dividing the site to sell off one or two parcels. She said Matt Brunning indicated at the last meeting that he was opposed to combining lots 5 and 6. She noted that Ray Quigley had just arrived at the meeting. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Quigley if he wished to speak. Raymond Quigley, 304 Te3on Place, Palos Verdes Estates, said they would rather not have lots 5 and 6 combined because it would make it difficult to finance the building for lot 5. He said the terminology of "restricted use" bothered him because at some time in the future it may become possible to develop that land, although there were no plans for development now. Dr. Brown said if in the future it was demonstrated that the area was appropriate for devblopment, there was'a procedure to take care of it. I Director Hightower said there probably was a procedure but she could not give a positive answer at this time. Mr. McTaggart said an option would be for the applicant to do the remedial geological work on lot 6 now as the Commission would prefer. He said if the applicant did not want to do that then combining the lots seemed to be the most reasonable alternative to allow the development to proceed. Mr. Quigley said their time frame was such that it would be difficult to delay the project. Jerry Moss, Rolling Hills Estates, said they had a prospective tenant for lot 5 and that it was a problem getting financing. He said the financial institutions did not want the obligation or the risk, that they did not like to deal with the unknown. Mr. PIcTaggart proposed a motion to deny the project. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. McTaggart was uncomfortable with combining the lots because it would restrict financing for lot 5 and, therefore, the lot could sit and nothing would be done to stabilize it. He was concerned about the effect on that area when the surrounding areas are developed. Mr. Hinchliffe expressed similar concerns and wondered if there was some mechanism to ensure against that. Director Hightower said there was a grading plan approved already for this site and that the parcel map did not affect that. Mr. Thompson said the conditional use permit was approved for the entire site. He said whether or not there are lot lines, the situation would be the same. Dr. Brown said the County recommended denial because of the creation of lot 6 and that the Subdivision Map Act did not permitthecreation of a lot of that type. He said combining�_the-lo.ts was the onlly alternative. 6/23/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolu- tion No. 81-47, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 14369 based on the findings as stated in the resolution and subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr.. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolu- tion No. 81-48, thereby approving Variance No. 68 based on the findings as stated in the resolution. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES. Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal both actions to the City Council within fifteen ('15) calendar days. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37962 Mr. Thompson said the Commission first CONDITIONAL USE PEP11IT NO. 66 reviewed this project on June 9 and at Northerly of Barkentine Road that time requested additional informa- Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties tion and continued the public hearing. Applicant: Sikand Engineering He said staff contacted Dr. Ehlig, City Geologist, and he indicated that addi- tional information would be needed in order to complete a thorough evaluation of the geologic impacts associated with the site, which would take two to three months to complete. He said the applicant submitted a revised tentative map in response to concerns raised during the public hearing but that it was submitted too late for staff to have adequate time for evaluation. He said the Commission received copies of the revision in the agenda packets. He referred to the letter from the applicant requesting that the Commission continue this item and review the project and geology separately. Staff was of the opinion that geology concerns should be resolved prior to considering further design alternatives, because geologic factors have an influence on the ultimate design of any project. ._Staff recomme_ii-d d that the -Commission deny the cgndi- tional use permit and recommend to the City Council denial of the tentative tract map. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Thompson said the applicant has always known that this was a problem site. Director Hightower explained that th-e-Xity-would-not normally -run the geology on a project through Dr. Ehlig. She said the County has reviewed it and recommended denial, but noted that they often do that pending further geology information. Public hearing was opened. Monte Brower, Palos Verdes Properties, said at the last meeting the appli- cant was directed to work with staff. He felt Dr. Ehlig's statements sup- ported their position that the slide could be safely stabilized. He said the field work recommended by Dr. Ehlig is now underway. He distributed written information to the Commission. He said the previous plan had six acres of development in the open Space Hazard zone and tonight's proposal has no development in the Open Space Hazard zone. He said the only develop- ment in the canyons would be for access. He said there were several other alternative access routes other than Barkentine Canyon. He said the City could have requested review of the geology reports sooner but instead waited 6/23/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- until June to take the position that the site was unbuildable. He said the applicant was willing to compensate the City for the geology work. He said a ninety (90) day extension would allow five months, until November, to complete the map and address geology. He said the extension would fur- ther allow the applicant time to meet with the homeowners and discuss the project. He said the applicant would be willing to meet with the Commission on an informal work basis. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Brower said the County first said the site was suitable for development and then later could not recommended approval because of the access. Roy Hoffman, Converse Ward Davis Dixon, 1440 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, said they have taken a conservative approach and that they know the basic overall geology of the site. He said they have information on the depth of the slide material but that Dr. Ehlig has raised questions that there may be something deeper. He said the landslide is very ancient. He said their calculations are based on a worst case situation. He said they have done some trenching and some borings, and he felt they could de- fine the limits to within one (1) foot. He said their concern was to look at the overall picture and at the type of development that would go there and then determine the corrective measures that should be taken. Dr. Brown asked how much variation there might be in the recommendations between a project of this magnitude or one half the size. Mr. Hoffman said they have come up with shear keys and buttress fills to replace materials and provide stabilization regardless of what is developed. He said once they know the basic geology of the site and what the problems are, it does not matter what the development is. He said common procedure is to first look at a project in the preliminary sense, then the pro3ect is designed accordingly, and then the geologist deals with the final plan. He felt the information they have now was suitable. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if there was any difference in the stability if they did the remedial work on the site or left the land as is, undeveloped:, Mr. Hoffman said they felt the site was essentially stable in its present state, but that since they were proposing modifications to the area they would want to be sure that they increased the stability. In response to further Commission questions, Mr. Hoffman said he believed the Glass Church was built prior to requirements for geology, that there were not the controls then that there are now. He said it was not until the Portuguese Bend landslide in 1956 that the County began requiring geology. He said the bedrock in the area was very high because of its orientation.- '.--Ife7 ":7f -61t- th,6-geology was -favorable, to --EK site of the development. He said the type development would only determine the corrective measures to be taken. He said the slide material was very shallow, twenty-five (25) feet deep, but was very dense and has been there for a long time. He said the area to the east (Portuguese Bend landslide) is an old slide with a depth of up to 200 feet in some places. He said they have drilled to a depth of 170 feet on the subject site and there is no indication that there is anything any deeper. He said the orientation was back into the hill and to get down to the ocean it would have to make a very large bend which is unlikely. He said bentonite indicates a very expansive material that is slick when it becomes wet. Phil Robinson, 3205 Barkentine Road, restated his previous concerns expressed at the last Commission meeting with geology, hydrology, and liability. He felt that since the geologist found the site stable in its present state, the site should be left alone. He said hydrology and liability have not been addressed. He said if the geology is a low risk proposition, it should not be any problem for the applicant to obtain substantial insurance for the residents and the City. He said the developers had months to work on these problems, since review of the environmental impact report. He felt the applicant was well aware of the concerns. He felt the land was too risky to develop at all and that it was -the -burden of the developer to bring =f7orth- -plans that Would benefit the c6mmu_nit__.v_._- He encouraged the Commission to accept the staff recommendation to deny the project and not continue the item. 6/23/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Kenneth Marks, Sikand Engineering, said he has been the project engineer for two and one-half years, that he began part-way through the environ- mental procedure. iii_e said th6re-,were rofis- 6—on-sb1tants ,involyed other than himself. He said geology is generally done in steps, that first they determine the feasibility of the project before submitting anything to the City, then they provide information to the reviewing agencies. He said he has seen the letters from the County and spoke with the County Geologist and the County's concern is with the emergency access. He said there were many alternative emergency access routes. He noted that the revised pro- ject design may not even require one. He said the next step in the process is once the final grading plans are done, a lot of information is required by the County, and the geologist is on site during the grading to make recommendations should things come to light at that time. He supported having the City Geologist review the project and requested time to allow for it. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Marks said one possibility for access is to have the road go in to the north, to the Presley site, which would not require crossing -Open Space Hazard zoning, but would require a land purchase. He said another possibility would be to bridge across the canyon. He discussed various other possibilities. Virginia Fleisher, 6330 Tarragon Road, representing the Abalone Cove Home- owners Association, said geology was an inexact science. She noted the current problems in the Seaview area and the Flying Triangle in Rolling Hills. She was concerned with cutting into land so near those areas. She questioned the geologist's statement that they could handle anything that came up during the grading. She said at the last meeting the applicants said they may be helping the entire area by stabilizing the problem on this site and tonight they are saying the site is stable as it is. Bob Pelton, 2 Packet Road, pointed out that there were many members of the Lower Abalone Cove Homeowners Association present at the last meeting even though he was the only speaker from the group. He said one issue of con- cern not addressed is that prior to thd Presley development the drainage in the area was barely adequate with the existing system, but since that development the residents have experienced damage to private property, which indicates the system's inablity to carry more of a load. He suggested solving the whole problem by creating a moratorium on the building and construction of the Presley development until a new drainage system is de- signed and installed ---one that is designed not only to accommodate the Presley site but also taking into consideration additional drainage from new developments such as this one. He said the drainage would be a pro- blem whether the land is stable or not. He concurred with the staff re- commendation for denial of the project. G. S. Sikand, Sikand Engineering, said he was working on this pr03ect be- fore Mr. Marks took over. He said the project was studied in many different ways, and he felt the current plan responded to the concerns. He said the hydrology problem with the Presley development was with the maintenance, that debris came down. He did.not feel this project would aggravate that problem in any way. He said the canyons proposed to -be --filled were riot substantial but that they could design a bridge that would satisfy the City's needs. He said geology is a big issue but that the applicant was asking the Commission if the geology issues can be satisfied, would the pr03ect be acceptable. He said they had submitted a number of design alter- natives but were waiting to come before'the Commission for guidance. Mr. Hughes said there are active landslides within sight of this area and the site contains known ancient landslides. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Sikand said they could design a system that will not increase the runoff. He said his understanding with the Presley site is that they diverted the water to avoid the active slide and it was a trade-off which is now affecting the people below. He said the area is currently a fire hazard and that if there is a fire the debris 6/23/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- would plug drains and become a problem. He said approval would allow development of a piece of property which will provide a tax base and may stabilize the area. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Baer,,and-unanimously_!7arfY-ed=, the public hearing was continued. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Thompson said the time factor was one reason staff preferred denying the project and having the applicant reapply. He felt five (5) months was not adequate time to pro- perly process this application. - Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the applicant would go to the end of the line again and wait another year to get to this point in the process if he resubmits the project application. Director Hightower did not feel there would be a year's delay since staff was nearing completion of some of the ma3or applications in the backlog. She said the environmental process would merely be a formality since the environmental impact report covers everything. She said the Commission could recommend that the project not be placed at the end of the line. She noted that there was a provision in the Code which prohibits reapplication of a conditional use permit within one (1) year. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolution No. 8149, thereby denying Conditional Use Permit No. 66 and recommending to the City Council denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 37962 based on the findings contained in the resolution and with the recommendation that the applicant be allowed to have the one (1) year rule for reapplication of a conditional use permit waived and the recommendation that the --applicant be required on any future proposals to have a full report by Dr. Ehlig at the applicant's expense. Mr. McTaggart felt the Commission should give direction to the applicant re the design of the project. He said since the Commission has heard testimony that the hydrology is already inadequate, perhaps they should discuss whether the amount of impervious material proposed is appropriate. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that the motion include the recommendation that the applicant not be placed at the end of the line when he reapplies, and that they set up some kind of informal meeting as suggested by the applicant to review the concept, if the City Attorney has no objection to that type of meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Hinchliffe's suggestions were already understood and that it was not necessary to include them in a formal motion. Dr. Baer said he was inclined to go along with the applicant's request for a -three (3) month time extension. He suggested asking the applicant his thoughts on the motion. Mr. Brower said he would have to go back and report to his employer and ex- plain the alternatives. Dr. Brown did not feel there was sufficient time to review the project and said the conditions attached to the motion would give the applicant the opportunity to come back and reapply. Mr. McTaggart agreed that it sometimes takes four to six meetings to come up with a configuration that is acceptable to the City and still meets the criteria for developability as far as the -applicant is concerned. However, he did not want the applicant to think that if the geology checks out the rest of the project is satisfactory, since the Commission has not yet dis- cussed the density or any other issues. 6/23/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- The motion was amended by Dr. Brown, with Mr. Hughes agreeing, to state that the geology should be addressed before the Commission considers any future applications. Roll call vote on the above motion, as amended, was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this action to the City Council within fifteen (15) calendar days. In response to audience questions, Director Hightower said the method for receiving agendas is to supply self-addressed, stamped envelopes to the City. RECESS At 10:10 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:22 p.m. with the same members present. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 178 APPEAL Ms. Lavitt said the 8,000 square foot 30221 Kingsridge site was located in an RS -3 zoning dis- Applicant/Landowner: R. Taylor trict. She described how the height Appellant: Richard Bullock of the proposed addition was measured. She said the house backs up to a Mira- leste Parks and Recreation District easement which slopes up from Kingsridge Road and is approximately eighty (80) feet wide. She said the residences to the south, which have Miraleste Drive addresses, do not have a view as defined in the Development Code. She said the appbllant's residence faces Miraleste Drive and the view from the back of their house is of trees planted in the Parks District easement and on private property. Staff analyzed the application and after a field inspection determined there would be no view obstruction caused by the addition. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal based on the Code's definition of view. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said the proposed addition would be six (6) feet higher than the existing ridgeline. She said the proposal did not exceed the thirty (30) foot limit. Reginald Taylor, 30221 Kingsridge Road, applicant, said the appellant thought they were adding fourteen (14) feet to the height of the house. He said the addition was on the south end of the house and was a little more than one-third of the width of the house facing the street. Richard Bullock, 4363 Miraleste Drive, appellant, said there were five additional people involved in the appeal who were unable to attend tonight's meeting because they were out of town. He requested that the item be con- tinued to another date. Mr. Hughes noted that there were a number of people present to speak on this matter. Mr. McTaggart said the listed appellant was present and, therefore, he could find no reason to continue the item. the ,.The Commissidn agreed to_-i6fo"e��ed with h e _noitcontinue it unle5s they were to reach a point where they needed clarification. Mr. Bullock said the objection was primarily based on a loss of privacy. _ He said the trees would be removed and excluded- _from 1iis'ViewiK4 area. ' In his opinion the property value of his home would decrease or at least not appeciate at the same level. He said they had a swimming pool and were concerned about the placement of windows on the addition. He felt the 6/23/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- sub3ect house was on a ridge or promontory. He also expressed concern about fire hazards and the geological fault he was advised runs through the area. He said his CC&Rs prohibit second -story additions. He referred to the eight objections listed in the letter he and other concerned resi- dents submitted to the City. Mr. McTaggart said the thirty (30) foot height was measured from a specific point and that by the City's_ definition the existing structure was twenty- four (24) feet high right now. He said -by the City's definition the home was not on a ridge. The following speakers had submitted requests to address the Commission but declined the opportunity to speak, saying Mr. Bullock expressed all of their concerns and that they concurred with his testimony: Rita Bullock, 4363 Miraleste Drive; Joseph E. Yankovich, 4351 Miraleste Drive; Eva Yankovich, 4121 Miraleste Drive; and Joseph Yankovich, 4121 Miraleste Drive. Mr. Hinchliffe felt this was a very clear case, that the appellant does not have a view as defined by the Code. Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to deny the appeal of Height Variation No. 178 based on the Commission ability to make all of the required findings in Section 9113 of the Code. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Brown, Hichliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. APPROVAL OF MINUTES the Commission unanimously approved 1981, as submitted. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Hinchliffe questioned portions of the minutes. Commission discussion clarified the points in question and the minutes of the meeting of June 9, Director Hightower asked about the Commissioners' vacation schedules. Dr. Baer said he would be on vacation from August 3 to September 10. Dr. Brown said he would be on vaction from August 22 to August 30. Director Hightower noted that Al Levitt has submitted his plans and would like another joint session in July. The Commission agreed on July 22 for the meeting. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes said he met with the other Committee Chairmen and the Mayor over the past weekend and discovered that the two Committee Chairmen were equally as upset with the new charter as was the Commission. He said they were planning to make their own statements. Mr. Hughes said the Traffic Committee will be holding a public hearing to review the impacts of privately owned streets in the City. ADJOURNMENT At 11:20 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Thursday, July 2, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 6/23/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-