Loading...
PC MINS 19810825M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting August 25, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: Baer Also present were Associate Planners Richard Thompson and Sandra Massa Lavitt. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving the following: A) minutes of meeting of July 27, 1981; B) minutes of meet- ing of July 29, 1981; C) minutes of meeting of August 11, 1981; and D) one-year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 7559. Mr. McTaggart noted that agenda item A under New Business (Variance No. 70) was really just an administrative matter which could be dealt with quickly and, therefore, suggested that the Commission take the item out of order and dispense with it first. It was the consensus of the Commission to do SO. VARIANCE NO. 70 Ms. Lavitt said the request was to 30523 Cartier Drive allow a recently constructed rear yard Landowner-;: Mr. & Mrs. Schaefer deck that encroaches a maximum of six Applicant: William C. Rogers feet into the setback. She read the Landscape Corporation section of the Code relating to ad- ministrative error and said the appli- cant stated that the staff made an administrative error by apptoving the -plans as submitted with the deck shown in the setback and, therefore, is requesting that the variance be granted and the fee waived. She said staff did approve the plans in error and the applicant did receive a building permit for said plans. She said staff did not detect the error until the deck construction was nearly com- pleted. Staff recommended that the variance be approved since an administra- tive error did occur in the issuance of permits for the deck, and staff also recommended that the filing fee be waived. She said the applicant has offered to provide additional heavy screen planting to minimize the visual impact of the deck from Hawthorne Boulevard and that staff recommended that the approval be subject to a condition requiring such landscaping. Public hearing was opened. No one was present to speak on the matter. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Reso- lution No. 81-53, thereby approVing Variance No. 70 in accordance with the staff recommendation with the waiver of the filing fee and subject to the condition of Exhibit "A" relating to landscaping. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: Baer Mr. Hughes advised of the right -to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen (15) calendar days. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31953 Mr. Thompson reviewed the issues of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 65 concern at the last meeting and said Paseo Del Mar and La Rotonda that subsequent to that meeting the Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties map was revised. He said the major Applicant: Lanco Engineering changes are the location .of the bluff road, the addition of a private re- creation area, the proposal for six lots next to the Paseo Del Mar and Palos Verdes Drive South intersection, and changing a bluff lot to a common lot to provide public access to the bluffs. He discussed the proposed access and street design. He said the problem with lots 30-33 is that there is not adequate buildable area due to the Coastal Setback line; staff recommended further revision to the lot lines. He reviewed the trails and said the bikeway network should be shown on the subdivision map. In response to Commission questions, Mr. 'Thompson suggestedclusteting the upper portion of- the project more in- order to open -up certain _other -area-s-. He felt some of the recreation area could be pushed up -further north. He said staff has not yet done a view analysis but felt that relocating the recreation facilities should be investigated to determine the amount of grading required, etc. He said the Traffic Committee was not specific in its recommendations re streets but that the minutes indicated the Committee preferred the proposed design in general. Re vacation of Paseo Del Mar he said it was his understanding that the property would revert to the owners of the condominiums, that they have underlying title to it in the event of a street vacation. Re having the road go through the school site, he said it would be necessary to obtain the agreement of the School District first in order to approve a plan such as that. Per Commission direction, he said staff would investigate the recording of such a document and the City's right to eminent domain. He said it appears the proposal shows the best location for the bluff road and that the applicant has been discussing the situation with the School District in trying to reach a solution. He said staff received a report from the City's consulting geologist and that it contains two parts: 1) the stability of the site ---the geologist felt additional information was necessary in order to approve the tentative map; and 2) the relationship of this site to landslides in the general area -- it was concluded that there was no relationship to either of the two land- slides in the area. He said the consultant has discussed the specific additional information necessary with the applicant. Public hearing was opened. Clark Leonard., Lanco Engineering, said all of the items raised by the Commission have been addressed. He said they have reduced the developed area and lot area and provided almost double the open space required by Code. He said the homes and the road have been moved away from the Ocean Terraces condominiums to provide buffering. He said the lots have been lowered and that the ridge heights were now below the view corridor. He said they provided common recreation facilities, trails, and parking for cars in the recreation area. He said the grading has been minimized, with rolling slopes of 5:1. He said they would be agreeable to protect the graded lots with the planting of rye grass. He said they have provided a bluff trail with fee ownership land so that the public has access to the trail. He said although they disagreed, they have done what the Traffic Committee asked, providing for two T -intersections. He said the road was shown going across school property because of the location of the storm drain as recommended by the geologist. He said it would also require fairly level land and that there was no other place for that road except at that intersection. He said if that is where the Commission would like the road, they would continue discussions with the School District. He said they would be willing to improve the road with the current proposal. Re utilities, he said there is a sewer line and an electrical line. Re the street vacation, he said they were having the title company research who would get the property. He said they have shown standard setbacks and the ridge height of each house. He said their geologist has been consulting with the City's consultant and knows what information is required. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Leonard said they would agree with providing additional lots along Paseo Del.Mar but that it would have its disadvantages, that the current proposal takes the flattest areas to create 8/25/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- the lots. He said they would agree to move the recreation area but pointed out that it would require more grading. He said the geologic hazard line represented a real problem to him, as their geologist indicated there were no geological problems with the land.' Arden Larson, Assistant Business Manager, Palos Verdes Peninsula School District, said the only concern of the School District is the bluff access road. He said they were not concerned with the location of its intersection at La Rotonda but objected to the configuration of the road itself. He said the proposed road takes one-third of an acre of the Palos Verdes Properties site but destroys the use of one full acre, or 12 percent, of the school site. He said it was to the School District's advantage to have the right-of-way in that general location and that he would recommend to the School District Board that they accept a right-of-way in that general area. He felt, however, that the inequities of its location needed to be discussed. He felt there was an alignment that would spread the loss of property between the two sites and still allow for a maximum 10 -percent slope. He felt realignment could be achieved without affecting the hydrology. Mr. McTaggart noted that no development was permitted seaward of the coastal bluff road and said realignment of the road could result in the School District losing more developable property. Mr. Larson said he was dust suggesting that other alternatives be explored. Mr. Hinchliffe pointed out that with realignment of the road the School District may have to improve one-half of the road in exchange for getting more property as opposed to Palos Verdes Properties improving the whole road with the present alignment. Elaine Fitz, 3200 La Rotonda, #210, speaking on behalf of the 100 homeowners of the Ocean Terraces Homeowners Association, read from her written testi- mony, copies of which were submitted to the Commission and staff. She asked that the Commission continue directing the applicant to relocate more of the units away from the Ocean Terraces. 'She pointed out that a policy of the Coastal Plan encouraged development landward of Paseo Del Mar. She said the Ocean Terraces would like to participate in the drafting of CC&Rs and deed restrictions for the site. She said they were supportive of the many changes which have been made but felt more changes could be made. In response to questions by Dr. Brown, Ms. Fitz said the Homeowners Associa- tion was opposed to private recreation facilities on the individual lots and thought that the Commission required common recreation facilities to eliminate the need for private facilities. Mr. McTaggart was concerned with the suggestion for deed restrictions that take away an individual property owner's right to apply for a variance, -etc. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown felt the developer should resolve the problem of the lots in the coastal setback. He said if more lots could be placed with the other five on Paseo Del Mar without view impacts it would be a good trade-off. He felt the bluff road could easily be worked out, maintaining the grade at the lowest level possible while accommodating the hydrology and the geologic setback. He concurred with further grading the knoll south of La Rotonda if it could be done in a reasonable fashion. He agreed with moving the recreation area if it could be accomplished. He disagreed with placing CC&Rs on a tract that would restrict the ability to have private recreation usage and restricts the variance procedures. He said the General Plan encourages recreational uses. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, would go along the bluff road, up La Rotonda was another one on Palos Verdes Drive South 8/25/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Thompson said the bike path to 25th Street. He said there that connects to 25th Street. -3- Mr. McTaggart was very concerned about the lots in the geologic setback and said they would require variances in order to build homes. He felt the lots should be eliminated in that area. He also felt the road should not be placed within the setback area. He felt a more accurate survey was necessary to deterrhine the exact location of the line before further con- sideration of the developmei't. Mr. Hughes was opposed to any homes being built seaward of the bluff road. He was also opposed to the lots proposed on the bluff because those homeowners would oppose future development of the park site. He felt it would be more consistent with the Coastal Plan to move the road so that the lots back onto it. Mr. McTaggart concurred with Mr. Hughes, and Dr. Brown said he had no objection to looking at that option. Mr. Hughes said he would like to see all options explored to insure that the approved project is in the best interest of the City and is the best development for the site. He noted that the Commission was very concerned about the bluff lots proposed in thesetbackarea. There was some discussion re clustering in the upper area. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Leonard said the open space area to the left of the drainage course across from Palos Verdes Drive East is very steep and would be difficult to access. He said they were told they could not bridge the drainage channel and could not obtain access off -of Palos Verdes Drive. Mr. Hughes said there was agreement that something needed to be done with the bluff top lots, that the lots in the setback line should be examined. He said the recreation area should be looked at and perhaps moved to not present a view impairment. He said the bikeway should be shown. He said the applicant should look at the extension of the coastal bluff road on to the site with no development -seaward. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson said the Commission could require its review of the CC&Rs. Mr. Leonard said the applicant was under a time constraint and requested the Commission to direct staff to look at conditions of approval and to do a view analysis. Mr. Thompson said although staff could not do a complete view analysis until there is a definite plan, he could look at the site generally to determine constraints to provide the guidance that the applicant is re- questing. He said the item would come back before the Commission as soon as revised plans are received from the developer. At 9:17 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m. with the same members present. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37885 Ms. Lavitt said the request was to CONDITION USE PERMIT NO. 73 subdivide a 163+ acre parcel into 47 Forrestal Drive northwest of single family lots. She said 148+ Pirate Drive acres of the site would be held in Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties common open space. She reviewed the Applicant: Sikand Engineering Open Space Hazard areas and the eleva- tions of the site. She said the site includes an underground stream and waterfall at the northeast corner. She said the moratorium encompasses an area along the most westerly boundary and that no grading or construction was permitted in that area. She said all of the lots were proposed on 15 acres to the west, ad3acent to Klondike Canyon. She discussed the re- quired grading and the proposed lot sizes. She referred to the mitigation measures listed in the staff report which must be incorporated into the design or made conditions of approval. She said the proposal call for 40 -foot wide streets with a 32 -foot roadway which appeared to be adequate 8/25/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- for this'subdiv sion;but.would,not allow enough':rgom fora-parkway/side- walk configuration. She said the circulation proposed would serve the tract adequately but street grades fell within an unacceptable slope of 12 to, 18 percent. She said a traffic study was being prepared evaluating the overall traffic impacts to the Palos Verdes Drive South and Forrestal intersection. She said the site held both Natural and Urban Overlay Dis- tricts and had been established in the General Plan in the Natural Environ= ment Element as extreme slope, high slope and natural vegetation. She said because of the rock quarry activity, the amount of grading incorporates the removal of debris and creates the terracing of the lots with grades ranging from 1-1/2:1 to 2:1 slopes. Staff felt finished contours should be more natural appearing (3:1 or less) which would also reduce the street grades to a more acceptable grade (10 percent or less). She said the lot lines were irregular and that altering lot lines to the bottom of the slope and adding that area of extreme slope to the common open space would acheive lots that are more easily defined. Staff was of the opinion that with redesigning of the plan the flag lot could be eliminated and incorporated into an alternative design. She said a supplemental geological report was submitted which addressed the location of the 47 lots. She said the City Geologist reviewed the data and requested that additional information be obtained in light of the recent Klondike Canyon landslide and how it might relate to the subject site. She said the additional data had been compiled but not yet submitted to the geologist for review. Shesaid according to maps on file with Parks and Recreation there is an established equestrian trail that runs along the western portion of the development area and extends from the boundary of Rolling Hills southward through the western portion of the development area, then proceeds west toward Klondike Canyon. She said the developer should investigate the possibility of relocating the equestrian trail and consider a trail easement as part of the final map. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, discuss the issues pertaining to the project, and direct the applicant to revise the project pursuant to staff and Commission concerns. Mr. Hughes asked about a time table on the review of the geology report. Ms. Lavitt said Dr. Ehlig indicated that the applicant would have the geology report to him next week and he would take one week to review it. Public hearing was opened. Ken Marks., Sikand Engineering, project civil engineer, said this was a unique site, that it was large in acreage but had many constraints. He said the first plan called for two areas of development but that subse- quent investigations indicated clustering the 47 units, as presented, was a better development. He said this proposal was covered as an alternative in the environmental impact report. He said they have prepared and sub- mitted to staff a revised plan which answers many of the concerns ex- pressed -by staff, but the plan had not yet been reviewed by staff. He said the geology report addresses the proximity of the Klondike Canyon slide. He said the revised plan eliminated terraced flat pads, that the revision more closely conforms to the natural slope. He said the road was the same in that there is still the loop road, but some cui-de=sacs were different. He said they would need to do some fine tuning -if -10 - percent grade is the criteria. He said the revised plan also addresses the lot line question. In response to questions by Dr. Brown, Mr. Marks said providing sidewalks would involve widening the right-of-way and he did not know that it would be a worthwhile trade-off. He said he would look at it, that if it fit there was no objection. Tom Appleby, 4351 Dauntless Drive, expressed concern about development adjacent to the moratorium area and in an area where there is the pending formation of a slide abatement district. He ss..d they have not been able to define the lines of the district. He was concerned about the con- siderable grading and disturbance which would be required and about changing the water flow into the Klondike Canyon area, as it might create additional problems. He felt this was an extremely dangerous development. 8/25/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hughes advised the audience that there would be no further notice and that interested parties should call staff to find out when this matter would be back before the Commission. Mr. McTaggart felt there was nothing the Commission could do until Dr. Ehlig's report is received. Re the applicant's request for some type of conceptual approval this evening on the project design, the Commission was uncomfortable about making any kind of commitment without having the geology input. They also noted that there had been no staff review of the revised plan. The item was continued. COMMISSION REPORTS Height Variation No. 170. suggestion to Mr. Hughes variations, particularly what criteria was used in Commission some guidance The Commission discussed the City Council's recent decision overturning the Planning Commission's denial of They further discussed the CityAtforrfeY's that the Commission analyze previous height those where appeals were granted, to determine making the decisions, and thus give the with regard to future decisions. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the Commission directed the Ordinance Subcommittee, consisting of Mr. Hughes and Mr. McTaggart, to research the matter and report back to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT At 10:34 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, September 8, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 8/25/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-