Loading...
PC MINS 198109220 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting September 22, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes LATE ARRIVAL: Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Associate Plan- ner Richard Thompson. CONSENT CALENDAR thereby approving the minutes of the 1981. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8941 29085 Palos Verdes Drive East Applicant: Stewart Voeltz Landowner: Becky Voeltz On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, as submitted, meetings of August 25 and September 8, Per staff's recommendation, on motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, the item was unanimously continued to the next meeting. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31953 Mr. Thompson said at the last meeting CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 65 the Commission requested further in - Paseo Del Mar & La Rotonda formation and revisions on the issues Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties of the bluff road, the location of Applicant: Lanco Engineering development, the recreation area, and view impact. He said the revised map shows realignment of the bluff road, redesign of the private recreation area, relocation of the three lots ad- jacent to the Paseo Del Mar and Palos Verdes Drive South intersection, and redesign of the lots proposed on the knoll seaward of La Rotonda. He said a total of eight lots were now proposed adjacent to the Paseo Del Mar and Palos Verdes Drive South intersection. He said the School District had a meeting last night concerning relocation of the bluff road and indicated that they had no objection to it. He discussed the view analysis, pointing out the critical view areas where staff was recommending limiting the heights to 16 feet above natural grade. Dr. Brown arrived at 7:41 p.m. Mr. Thompson discussed the problems with the public road serving the eight lots and said staff recommended relocation of the road. Staff further recommended that the applicant provide the means for farming on the area marked as agricultural since it waspreviouslyused as such. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Thompson said the developer was looking at the issue of building a home over the sewer line and will have to redesign if he cannot resolve the problem. Staff suggested as a condi- tion of approval that the developer provide a plan for a more formal walk- way to the trail. He said the homes were shown with heights of 16 feet on the low side and 28-30 feet on the high side of finished grade. He said the applicant was proposing ten feet of fill for drainage purposes. He said the fill would push the ridge heights to 30 feet above the natural grade. Mr. Hughes noted that this was a continued public hearing, and the public hearing was opened. Mike Nichols, Lanco Engineering, 17430 South Prairie Avenue, Torrance, said they agreed with the location of the bluff road. He felt the eight lots at the west end were in a good location. He said the drainage course in that area was minimal compared to the remainder of the drainage courses on the site. He said filling it in would eliminate maintenance problems. He felt they could not take access for the eight lots anywhere else because of the steepness of the grade. He said the ten -foot fill was proposed right along the extremities of the property. Re the height of the structures he said they wished to comply with the existing City Code. He said the County Sanitation District will allow them to build over the sewer line if there is an agreement assuring that the owner will not sue the District. He said they were asking the Commission for approval in concept. The Commission expressed concern with building over the sewer line in the event of a failure, which might require demolition of the structure, and noted that once the lot was sold the problem would belong to the property owner. Monte Brower, Palos Verdes Properties, said they would explore alternatives for the location of the access serving the eight lots. Re building over the sewer line, he said they would be very certain of their position prior to any construction. He said, however, that they would restudy that lot to see if they could relocate the structure off of the sewer line or revise the lot lines. He said realignment of Palos Verdes Drive South would be done as - part of this development. He said reducing the number of tennis courts was a trade-off for moving the court away from the existing condominium complex. Re staff's concern about the 2:1 slope, he said perhaps they could pull the tennis court out of the hill to reduce the grading. He said most of the parcels with a narrow frontage are at the corners and are pie -shaped proper- ties. He said they would look at relocating the access but noted that it may create major grading concerns. Elaine Fitz, Ocean Terraces Homeowners Association, 3200 #210 La Rotonda, said the Association supported the relocation of the bluff road but that there was still a question re what happens to the land with the vacation of Paseo Del Mar. She said they also support the relocation of the recreation area. She described her view and that of some of the other homeowners in the complex. She asked about the geology study. Mr. Thompson said staff was still waiting for the geology information, that the study was still underway. Ellis Dodson, 3200 #209 La Rotonda, responding to a Commission question, said the orientation of the tennis court to the prevailing wind was not as important as its relationship to the sun. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. McTaggart said with the decrease in street sweeping, the location of catch basins and drainage courses becomes critical. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff work with the applicant and explore alternatives for other types of access for lots 64 - 71. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff work with the applicant specifically on those lots identified as being view critical (lots 45 - 5.9) and see.what-could be done in terms of alternate grading, etc. Mr. Hughes said staff should take a good look at what was proposed on lot 53 and what liabilities are concerned with regard to the sewer line. It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant look at trail access and resolve the issue. 9/22/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Dr. Brown supported looking at reorientation of the tennis court if it could be accomplished without detriment. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff and the applicant look at what might happen with an alternate alignment of the tennis court. Re lot width, Dr. Brown agreed with staff. Mr. Thompson discussed staff's suggestion of moving the road to create wider lots, putting the road instead of the lots along the setback line. Because the knoll commands a significant view, Mr. Hughes said he would like to see the road moved to along the setback line and requested that the applicant and staff look at that alternative. He said that would provide a public view and would buffer the homes from the park. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff and the applicant look at alternative road alignments for the knoll. It was the consensus of the Commission to limit structure heights on lots 70 and 71 to 16 feet, as suggested by staff. It was the consensus of the Commission to agree with staff's recommendation that the applicant provide the means to allow farming on the site, in the location marked on the map. Re the bluff road alignment, Mr. McTaggart questioned the validity of an agreement with the property owner of the -adjacent site in the event that the School District should decide to sell the land. _ He also asked if it would be necessary to obtain permission from Zuckerman for the grading and drainage effects to his property which was also adjacent to the site. He requested that staff check on these matters with the City Attorney. It was the consensus of the Commission that the bluff road be placed in the location presented this evening. Mr. Hughes reminded the audience that there would be no further notice on this matter and advised interested parties to contact staff with regard to the next time this item will be on the Commission's agenda. RECESS At 9:06 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:16 p.m. with the same members present. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 21 Mr. Hughes explained that this item Portion of Coastal Subregion 1, and the next one were for the same adjacent to Palos Verdes Estates project but, for purposes of public Landowner: M. Berry, Trustee testimony and Commission review, must Applicant: Burrell, Ltd. be dealt with as two distin.ctly separate items. He explained the basic differences between the two items and briefly outlined some typical environmental concerns. Mr. Thompson said pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) staff conducted an environmental assessment of the project's impact on the environment and prepared an initial study, which determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) was required. He said in summary the project proposed 25 residential lots on the site. He said the Commission must receive public testimony on environmental issues and following review of the document must determine whether it is adequate and complete. Staff recommended finalization of the EIR since it conformed to City and State environmental guidelines. Public hearing was opened. 9/22/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, said he had no comments but was available to answer any Commission questions. Dr. Baer did not feel the document was complete since it did not contain statements for several issues and instead referenced other documents on file with the City. Mr. Burrell said the law permits referencing other documents. Gary Erland, 7430 Via Lorado, was concerned about the displacement of wild- life. He said this site has been a natural habitat for many species of wildlife. He said he had not read the document and did not know if the matter had been addressed. He said if the development occurs all at one time it would not allow for migration of the animals. Mr. Hughes said a list of wildlife is identified in the document and the effects of the development on the habitats have been addressed. He said the vacant land adjacent to the development site would allow for some migration and pointed out that if the grading was done over a period of time rather than at once, it would significantly affect the marine environ- ment. Mr. Hinchliffe pointed out that the entire site would not be graded, that about seven to eight acres would be -left open. Mr. Erland was also concerned about allowing public access into the area. Mr. Hughes said the roads were proposed to be public, the bluff trails would be accessible, a portion of the park site was proposed as a public park, and that the five -acre agricultural site would carry on the farming that is currently going on. Dr. David Croft, 3282 Paseo Del Mar, expressed concern about the sensi- tivity of the tidepools and said Fish & Game indicated that this is an ecologically sensitive area. He was concerned about the increase in the number of people traversing the bluffs and, therefore, objected to the proposed public roads which would encourage access. He said the only reason for access should be for the homeowners, that when the homes are built there would be no view from the road. He was concerned with the effects of public access to the tidepools and felt it would have a tremen- dous impact. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart said both speakers brought up issues that were not adequately addressed in the document. He said he would like more time to study the document and those referenced to determine what additional comments may be necessary. He said there was no mitigation proposed regarding the dis- placement of animals either by reference or in the document, nor was any proposed regarding the marine environment. He said the document did not address the problems of overfishing or the protection of the marine en- vironment. Mr. Thompson said the concerns brought up by the speakers were answered accurately by the Commission, and that the issues were addressed in the City's Coastal Specific Plan and General Plan EIRs. Director Hightower noted that CEQA deals only with endangered species, not field mice and other animals which are on this site. Mr. McTaggart felt he could not finalize a document as being adequate when it referenced other documents which he had not read. Dr. Brown noted that all comments and minutes would be made part of the final document. He said if the Commission felt other mitigation measures should be added to the document they could be included as part of the motion. 9/22/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Mr. Hinchliffe said there were no endangered species identified on the site, that access to the bluffs had been addressed, and that the issue of public access is a matter of City policy. He did not feel the issues raised should prevent finalizing the EIR as presented. Dr. Baer felt the document should contain statements on all issues rather than referencing other various reports. He felt all of the information should be specifically incorporated into the document. He said while the Coastal Plan was mentioned there was no specific reference to it. He re- ferred to several sections of the California Coastal Plan and said while some issues may have been mentioned in this EIR, they were not fully addressed. Mr. Hinchliffe said the EIR does make specific references to the City's Coastal Plan. He said a lot of changes in CEQA occurred in 1981 to streamline the process and result in smaller EIRs by referencing other documents. He felt this EIR was consistent with CEQA. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to finalize Environmental Impact Report No. 21, since it conforms to City and State Environmental Guidelines. Mr. Hughes felt the issues raised this evening have already been addressed in the document. Vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes NOES: Baer, McTaggart ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 40640 Mr. Thompson reviewed the proposal and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 68 project location. Staff recommended Portion of Coastal Subregion 1, that all unbuildable area be located adjacent to Palos Verdes Estates within.common lots or dedicated to the Landowner: M. Berry, Trustee City. He reviewed the street grades Applicant: Burrell, Ltd. and said the Commission should deter- mine whether the proposed trails are adequate. He said staff was concerned about whether or not lots 1, 2, and 17 are actually buildable lots. He said the bikeway and pedestrian walkway should be shown on the tentative map. He reviewed the preliminary view analysis and referred to the photographs taken by staff which show proposed ridge heights to be well below the bluff line except for lots 1 and 2, where staff was concerned about both public and private views. In response to Commission questions, Director Hightower said the Coastal Specific Plan did not identify any of the trails on this site to be open to the public, that the City's contention .has been that all of those trails are too dangerous to allow public access. In response to a request by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson described for benefit of the audience the City's policy on view impairment and the intent of the Code. Public hearing opened. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, said this proposal had gone through many changes before getting to the Commission. He said he has worked closely with staff and met on two occasions with the homeowners in the area, that the map was revised to meet their concerns. He discussed the geologic setback line and views. He showed photographs and said he would limit the height on lot #1 to 16 feet; he felt 18 feet was a reasonable height limit for lot #2. He proposed dedicating an easement to the City for the north- ernmost trail and allowing it to be maintained since it has easy public access. He proposed closing the middle trail, leaving it accessible but 9/22/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES not providing easy access, and preserving the area to the left. He dis- cussed the proposed common open space and suggested that input be obtained from the City Attorney. He showed examples of designs proving the builda- bility of lots 1, 2, and 17. He discussed open space credit and referred to the Cayman project at Hawthorne and Highridge, where he contended that the developer was given buildable area credit. He said a lot of work had been done on this plan and felt it was not a typical first -submittal map. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Burrell said the cul-de-sacs were designed to allow for fire truck turn -around, that they were designed to the maximum standards. Millie Kildiszew, 1736 Chelsea Road, Palos Verdes Estates, felt the cur- rently proposed homes were too small for the area, that there would be view obstruction, and that the lots were too small for the area. She said she had to lower her site to obtain approval of her parcel map. Dr. David Croft, 3282 Paseo Del Mar, asked why this development was not permitted private streets while in other sections of the City gated communi- ties were allowed. Mr. Hughes said to the best of his knowledge there have been no gated communities approved in the City since its incorporation other than the first request for one. He said it has been the policy of the City that private streets were not desirable. He added that the coastal area is re- quired to be open to the people of the State of California, per the voters. .Dr. Croft felt the proposed lots were not compatible with the surrounding density as they were too small. He said he was not aware of the Residen- tial Planned Development (RPD) provision of the Code. He felt the trails were hazardous and that there was a designated public access in Palos Verdes Estates right off Paseo Del Mar and one in the southern section of Subregion #1. He said the Sedway-Cooke study did not show access at this location. Mr. Hughes explained that the RPD provision of the Code was included in the Development Code when it was adopted in 1975. He noted that the Sedway-Cooke study was 3ust a study to propose development schemes for specific areas. Michael Carty, 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West, said the Sedway-Cooke study set design guidelines and on page 37 suggests that homes in this area not exceed 16 feet in height. He felt his view would be obstructed by the proposed project. A representative for Clare Yardumian, 1617 Via Ariba, Palos Verdes Estates, said Ms. Yardumian has been asking the developer for an easement for access to her land -locked property, but that no easement has been forthcoming. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Thompson explained that Ms. Yardumian requested a Certificate of Compliance several months ago and that the City reviewed the request and requested proof of access to prove that it is a legal lot. Clark Wiedmann, 30032 Palos Verdes Drive West, objected to homes exceeding 16 feet on lots #1 and #2. He said their view is basically across those two lots. Eleanore Wiedmann, 30032 Palos Verdes Drive West, said one of the most sensitive areas is across from lot #1. She said they can see the white water and the water washing over the rocks from their home. She said part of their view was destroyed when the measuring sticks were in place. Gary Erland, 7430 Via Lorado, said his property backs down to Palos Verdes Drive West and that many properties along there enjoy panoramic views. He felt a small lot subdivision would disrupt the views more than large lots 9/22/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- would. He also felt the heights should be kept at 16 feet. He requested that staff take photographs from his property. Constance Shea, 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West, said the deed restrictions allowed one house on one acre at one story only, and that the zoning was for one acre lots. She said she received no notice of a zone change. She said the project would obstruct her view. Mr. Hughes said there has been no zone change, that the site was still zoned RS -1 but that the Code allowed clustering of lots, permitting the same number of lots, but at a smaller size to maintain large areas of open space, under the RPD provision. Mr. R. M. Brockett, 3420 Palos Verdes Drive West, was concerned with lot #27 and felt the public access would create a dump. He requested definite consideration be given to the control of that area. He was concerned with view obstruction and a row of 30 -foot homes creating a wall effect. He was also concerned with the incompatibility of lot size proposed for the site. He said he would rather see larger lots and no RPD. Glen Hastings, 3000 Via Alvarado, Palos Verdes Estates, said the developer took photographs from his property and that there was a significant differ- ence between 16 -foot and 30 -foot structures. Tim Burrell felt the homes proposed were large enough, as were the lot sizes. He agreed with Dr. Croft in that he would also prefer private roads. He said the label of "other bluff access" was inappropriate on the map in that he did not propose bluff access at that point. Re Mrs. Yardumian's request for an easement, he said it was in the hands of the attorney for the trust, the legal owner of the property. He requested to see the deed restrictions referred to by Mrs. Shea, as he could not find a restriction for one-story homes. He agreed with Mr. Brockett's concern about lot #27. Re the farming area becoming a dump, he said there would be fencing. He said the RPD concept saves views and eliminates the "wall effect." He said the split level homes were designed to look over the roof tops of the homes in front. Dorothy Berkey, 7327 Via Lorado, said the project would affect the white water view she has enjoyed from her living room since she moved there in 1965. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hughes advised the audience that there would be no further public notice and that it was the responsibility of interested parties to contact the City to find out when future meetings will be held on the matter. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct questions to the City Attorney regarding techniques that the City should be using to gain appro- priate controls over the bluff areas. The Commission discussed open space in terms of building credit. Mr. Thompson said the issue was whether the Commission would waive the re- quirement for common open space based on the amount of private areas. Staff felt the private areas would make up the four -percent deficit. Director Hightower noted that this may be a problem when the applicant goes before the Coastal Commission. Re the coastal bluff setback, Mr. Thompson said the developer was suggest- ing that the Commission entertain a variance to build within the setback, not move the line. Director Hightower explained that there was no mechanism for moving the line. She said the Coastal Plan allows for density credit if an applicant can prove there is stable land oceanward of the line. 9/22/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- Tim Burrell said the request was not to build over the setback line, but rather to challenge the location of the line. He said he wanted to submit his geology report and have the line moved based upon new information. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that staff check with the City Attorney on this matter. Re the Commission discussion on the request for an easement for access to the lot between lots #1 and #2, Mr. Thompson said the City Attorney indi- cated the matter was between the two parties involved. Mr. Thompson said staff did not want to see a row of -two-story homes along the bluff. He said the number of two-story homes was limited along the rim in The Ridge development. It was the consensus of the Commission that unless there was view obstruction there was no objection to two-story homes. It was the consensus of the Commission to determine a specific number of two-story homes for the site. Staff and the applicant were directed to work on this. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed buildings for lots #1 and #2 would be adequate. Staff was directed to check on street slopes and the use of retaining walls. It was the consensus of the Commission to keep the park where it is proposed. Re the median break, Mr. Thompson said the Planning staff did not have a problem with that location provided the traffic study determines it is safe. Mr. Hughes suggested the matter go before the Traffic Committee prior to the next meeting. He felt the Commission should have the Traffic Commit- tee's recommendation on the matter. It was the consensus of the Commission that this project shall remain a public street project. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that staff check the properties which were missed during the view analysis of those persons who expressed concern this evening. COMMISSION REPORTS The Commission discussed the City Council's recent decision overturning the Commission's recommendation on Code Amendment No. 11, and the recent legislation concerning the authority of the Coastal Commission with regard to affordable housing and the pro- cessing of coastal permits. ADJOURNMENT At 1:00 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, October 13, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 9/22/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-