Loading...
PC MINS 19811208M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Pleetinq December 8, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:38 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 and Associate Plan- ner Sandra Massa Lavitt. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Hughes pulled the two tentative parcel maps from the Consent Calendar so that the Commission could vote on the individual resolutions and conditions. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission unanimously oassed the Consent Calendar, as amended, thereby approving the minutes of the meeting of November 24, 1981, as presented. '14r. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 81-60, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 14537, subject to the conditions 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 appeal this decision to the Citv Council within fifteen calendar days. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 81-61, thereby an-oroving Tentative Parcel Map No. 14538, subject to the conditions 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 appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 191 APPEAL Ms. Lavitt said this item was tabled 30014 Via Victoria at the last meeting for a more complete Appellant/Landowner: Ezell roof design and. to include a proposal for a hip roof on the new addition. She said the applicant had provided staff with drawings that indicate both a hip and gable style roof design. She said with a hip roof at the front a greater amount of the horizon would be available for view but felt that the amount of additional view was not significant. Staff recommended denial of the appeal. Gene Ezell, 30014 Via Victoria, referred to the drawings which were on dis- play. He said they had previously proposed a cable roof design because it would be just bringing the existing roof forward. He said the hip roof now proposed was less obtrusive. Mr. McTaggart felt the hip roof would reduce the impact and, therefore, was the preferable design. Dr. Brown asked if a resolution had been prepared. Ms. Lavitt said a resolution was prepared for approval of the project with a gable roof and that staff would prepare a resolution for the next meeting if the Commission chooses the hip roof design. It was the consensus of the Commission that a hip roof was preferable. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to grant the appeal for Height Variation No. 191 with the findings that the project has been designed in such a manner as to reduce the impact and to require a hip roof as proposed this evening, subject to Commission review of the resolution which staff was directed to prepare. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: Baer ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes said the Commission action was to approve the appeal of Height Variation No. 191, thereby approving the project, and he advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37885 Ms. Lavitt reviewed the background of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79 this request. She said Dr. Ehlig of Forrestal Drive northwest of Robert Stone and Associates had re - Pirate Drive viewed all of the geologic reports and Landowner: Palos Verdes Properties that he was of the opinion that develop - Applicant: Sikand Engineering ment of this site would not affect the Klondike Canyon activity. She said the site was a total of 163 acres of which 47 acres were buildable and that the proposed development was located on 15 acres at the most western portion of the site. She said the proposed lot sizes varied from 6,500 to 18,000 square feet. She said the total project density would closely approximate the tracts surrounding the site. She re- viewed the grading and slope characteristics. She said conditions must be included in the CC&Rs which address the maintenance of the debris channel and fence. She reviewed the equestrian trail and the traffic and street design. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, and discuss the issues which pertain to the tract. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said the road had been shifted about 20-30 feet more towards the south in order to create a deeper debris basin. Director Hightower asked that Dr. Ehlig summarize the report that was pre- pared by him for the City. Dr. Perry Ehlig, 1560 Via Del Rey, South Pasadena, said under contract to the City he did a geology review of the geological reports prepared by the applicant's geoloqist. He felt it had been demonstrated that the Klondike Canyon landslide did not extend into the area of the site and that the pro- posed development would not have an effect on that landslide. In his opinion the geologic conditions of the site were satisfactory for the pro- posed development. He recommended the task of evaluating measures designed to: A) stabilize the mudflow and earthflow deposits underlying the proposed development; B) correct the roadway., sidewalk and cut slope in the area where Forrestal Drive is deformed; and C) eliminate the rockfall hazard from the quarry face north of Forrestal Drive all be assigned to the County. 12/8/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- In response to Commission questions, Dr. Ehlig said the bedding Planes come to the surface downslope of this project site and that the project would have no impact provided that no water is allowed to drain from the project site into the slide area. He said the standard procedure for buttressing is to remove the earth and recompact it. Public hearing was opened. Ken Marks, Sikand Engineering, discussed the exhibits that they prepared and answered questions of the Commission. He said they checked with the State Highway Department about the construction of debris fences, that he was sure they had some quantitative data on the matter. He said cutting off the face of the cliff would require a lot of export and he was not sure what would be required to get the rock out. He said they have done borings in the area of the knoll and know that the rock there is fractured but have not done testing in the other area. He discussed the buttressing and indi- cated on the map where it would go. He said the original plan was for terraced lots, that this plan was a more natural situation. Mark Bryant, Converse Ward Davis Dixon, engineering geologist, said the buttress would be about 120 feet wide with a 68-foot'maximum depth. He said there were numerous precautions taken. In response to Commission questions, he said the final grades would dictate the exact size of the buttress. He described the process and said it would precede construction on the site. He said the buttress construction would take about two to three months. He said concrete caissons would not be a satisfactory solu- tion. He said the work could probably be done with six scrapers and a couple bulldozers. He said the bedrock would be removed with conventional heavy earth moving equipment. Max Thomas, 3849 Pirate Drive, said he presumed that the development would have underground utilities and asked if the poles along Forrestal Drive would be removed. Speaking for the Palos Verdes South Homeowners Associa- tion, he said that was one request of the Association. Irwin Gebroa, 4230 Dauntless Drive, expressed concern about geology. He felt any building above the Seaview area would magnify the problems of that area because they would be redistributing the earth and creating pressure. He said he was not opposed to development as he felt it would increase the value of his home, but because of the instability in the area he felt there should not be any more development. Beverly Callahan, 4304 Exultant Drive, felt until the limits of the Klondike Canyon landslide are well defined and the slide is stabilized that nothing should be developed in the immediate adjacent area. Henri de la Garrigue, 4024 Stalwart Drive, had no objection to the subdivi- sion but felt Palos Verdes Drive South should be widened. Tom Appleby, 4351 Dauntless Drive, was concerned about the geology which he said was an inexact science. He was concerned about how the earth would be moved and if blasting would be prohibited, and requested that it be so. He also expressed concern about the drainage. He said there was a lot of supposition in this and felt it was potentially a very dangerous situation in Seaview. Jeanne Crose, 3913 Admirable Drive, asked if there would be restrictions in terms of lot size and swimming pools. She felt swimming pools created a substantial concentration of weight which could be a factor in terms of earth movement. She was also concerned about the pools leaking. She was concerned about the exactness of any geological study and said the exact parameters of the slide were difficult to determine. She also expressed concern about the traffic increase. Michael Burke, 3642 Vigilance Drive, president of the Palos Verdes South Homeowners Association, asked about Forrestal Drive, zoning of the site, lot size requirements, compatibility with the surrounding area, and grading. He said they would feel much safer if there was no blasting and asked if he could have a copy of the plot plan. 12/8/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Monte Brower, representing Palos Verdes Properties, said he would provide a copy of the plot plan. Roberta Lopez, 32200 Valor Place, was concerned about the effects of the compacting machine and the traffic along Palos Verdes Drive South. She said there were drainage swales all along the bank, along the school property, and that they needed to be maintained. Ken Marks addressed some of the questions that had been brought up during the public testimony. He said this was a tentative map and that they were looking at alternatives. He said the project site was in excess of 160 acres. He said the area of Forrestal Drive that would be raised is the portion beyond the extension of the existing road. He said there was noth- ing that indicated a need for blasting and they felt the area could be graded with conventional earth moving equipment. He discussed the drainage proposals. He said the development would decrease the water going into Klondike Canyon. He said they have storm drain plans from the County and have determined their adequacy. He explained the method of compaction. RECESS At 9:54 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. with the same members present. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Dr. Baer, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. In response to Commission questions, Dr. Ehlig said there was a great deal more geological data now than there was one year ago. He discussed the slide and said they have enough control now to project through and predict where it would be. He said caissons would not work in this case because it would flow around them. He said the weight of a filled swimming pool was considerably less than the weight of the dirt which was removed to put the pool in. Dr. Brown felt the Commission should have the hydrology study and informa- tion pertaining to the question of lawn and slope watering. He felt the hydrology and drainage were extraordinarily important issues in dealing with the project. He felt a common recreational facility would be a nice feature to the project. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the buttressing and the time schedule involved. Dr. Baer was concerned about the traffic study and improving the ocean views from the proposed lots. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the Commission needed more information on hydrology and more definitive data on actual lot sizes. He did not feel they should allow more fill in order to create additional views. He said the utility poles should be addressed as well as the buttress and time schedule, etc. He did not feel that the development needed its own recreational facility due to its adjacency to a school site. Mr. McTaggart was also concerned with the number of cul-de-sacs proposed and with splitting up the lots and the setbacks. Mr. Hughes summarized the Commission's concerns. Re hydrology, he said the Commission wished to see the report and was interested specifically in the drainage plan, landscaping concerns, lawn watering, and the effects of residential development on the hydrology, particularly with respect to Klondike Canyon. Re grading, the Commission was concerned with the grading plan, the time involved, how it would be scheduled, particularly since during rains it is vulnerable to additional water seepage. He said he would like to see some consideration given to a recreational facility as the development is somewhat isolated. He said there was also the question of the City's liability should this development in fact cause acceleration of the ad3acent landslide. 12/8/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Director Hightower said the risk was the same as in any other area. In response to further questions by Mr. Hughes, Director Hightower said there would be no significant increase in traffic and that the streets were not loaded anywhere near capacity. Mr. Hughes said the Commission wished to ensure use of the existing eques- trian trail. Re Dr. Baer's concern about views he felt there should be more information than just one section. He said the Commission would like some alternate approaches for handling the streets and would like a feel for what the lot sizes would be. He said other areas that should be ex- plored are the alternatives and costs for dealing with the face of the quarry slope and the fence. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Monte Brower said the plan was for a lot sale program. Mr. Hughes advised that there would be no further notification on the project and that it was the responsibility of interested parties to con- tact the City re future meetings on the project. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower noted that there were no items scheduled for the meet - of December 22, 1981 and suggested that the Commission not meet at that time. She also discussed the requested joint meeting with the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission sometime in January. It was the consensus of the Commission to not schedule any items for its December 22, 1981 agenda and to cancel the meeting. It was further the consensus of the Commission to meet with the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission on Thursday, January 21, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. at Rolling Hills Estates City Hall. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes said the City Council ap- proved the Burrell tract map with one change and sent the conditional use permit back to the Commission for some kind of setbacks which would pro- vide view corridors between the homes. ADJOURNMENT At 11:27 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, December 22, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 12/8/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-