CC MINS 19820609 ADJ M I N U T E S
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 1982
The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P. M. by Mayor Jacki Bacharach at the School
Administration Building located at 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard.
11/ PRESENT: HEIN, RYAN, SHAW, AND MAYOR BACHARACH
ABSENT: DYDA
Also present were City Manager Donald Guluzzy, Planning Director Sharon Hightower,
Associate Planner Ann Negendank, City Attorney Steve Dorsey, Planning Commission
members Mel Hughes and John McTaggart, and Acting City Clerk Marilyn Smith.
Also present were James Ray, of Ray Construction Co. , Golden Cove Owner Howard Adler,
Community Housing Foundation representative Don Page, Van Dell & Associates Senior
Planner Jeff Prostor, and architects Al Fishman and Kermitt Dorius.
GOLDEN COVE DEVELOPMENT - GENERAL PLAN Associate Planner Negendank presented
AMENDMENT NO. 12 the staff report of June 9, 1982 which
(701) outlined the major points of each phase
of development of this project.
Mr. Page then addressed the Council regarding how the problem of a buyer leaving one
company in the consortium for another would be handled and how the consortium had
arrived at the decision to look into the possibilities of building affordable housing
on the Peninsula.
Council inquired if the number of units to be sold to affordable income groups would
fulfill the City's requirements for affordable housing. Staff said it would fulfill
a portion of the annual goal.
When the Council expressed concern about the balloon payment at the end of 10 years,
Mr. Adler explained that there would be a variety of financial packages available
and that the balloon payment was only one of the options.
When Mr. Page was asked if there was going to be a maximum income for a buyer to
purchase an affordable unit, he answered that the consortium would try to find a
qualified buyer at the minimum income for a unit. If a buyer could not be found
at that income, they would seek a buyer at the next higher income level.
Mr. McTaggart asked if a demographic study had been made. He was concerned if
potential buyers would like living in high density areas.
Mr. Page told the Council that density would not be a problem and that the consortium
'uld not have a problem selling the units.
uncil then discussed the density of the project, how 20.31 units per acre were
planned, and how this density would affect the surrounding community.
Staff then gave Council an explanation of the type of units the developer planned
to build.
In response to Council's inquiry about impacts in developing this land as all
commercial rather than a portion residential, Ms. Negendank gave the Council the
estimated traffic flows for the different land uses.
The Council then addressed the problem of Fast Tracking. Ms. Hightower told the
Council that Fast Tracking would not necessarily bump other projects at this partic-
ular time because of the present workload in the Planning Department.
The City Attorney did not feel that there would be any legal problems with fast
tracking this item.
In response to Mr. McTaggart's question concerning legal problems if City employees
were allowed to buy units under affordable housing, Mr. Dorsey responded that a
conflict of interest was not an issue at this point in time.
The discussion then centered around fire walls. Although the fire walls adhered to
County regulations, the Council reminded the developers that the fire walls were not
to City code and, therefore, this problem should be looked into.
Mr. McTaggart did not like the way the buildings were designed relative to sound-
proofing and gave the developers a suggestion on how this construction could be
improved upon using a suspension system which was relatively inexpensive.
Council expressed concern about view impact from Hawthorne Boulevard and inquired
if the units could be designed as to be unnoticed by traffic coming down Hawthorne
toward Golden Cove.
The Council then looked at the Development Standards listed in the staff report and
stated that Item (5) on Page 3, using coastal in-lieu fees for infrastructure im-
provements or fees, were not in the City's interest.
Under Policy Decisions listed in the staff memo on Page 3, they agreed that Item (2)
should be changed from 10% to "at least 10%" and to change the category to a City
eligibility determination.
Council expressed concern for provision of adequate storage space for the units.
The suggestion was made for use of lockable storage in carports.
Council also wanted the developers to look at the balconies. Council did not feel
they were big enough. The other policy decisions outlined in the staff report
were also discussed.
The developers were then asked to come back to Council with the following questions
being considered: (1) Adequacy of fire walls; (2) storage space provided in garages;
(3) Size of balconies: (4) View impact: (5) Adequate soundproofing; (6) Density.
The developers told the Council that they would prepare another proposal which would
be distributed to Council within two weeks.
Council explained to the developers that there could be several meetings with the
Planning Commission, and considerable public input via Public Hearings would be held
prior to a decision being made on this project.
The developers were then excused from the meeting.
Mayor Bacharach then asked the Council if it was all right for her to invite the Parks
and Recreation Committee to attend the Council's 5th Tuesday in June meeting. The
other members saw no problem in issuing the invitation.
HESSE PARK VIEW ANALYSIS Director Hightower presented a series of
(1201) panoramic photographs showing the impact
on views.
It was moved by Councilwoman Shaw, seconded by Mayor Bacharach and carried that staff
request the architect to give the Council estimates for lowering the building pad 8
feet including all the cost ramifications.
ADJOURNMENT At 12:05 A.M. Councilwoman Shaw moved,
seconded by Councilwoman Hein and carried
to adjourn to June 14th at 7:30 P.M. for
a Budget Work Session.
LtYORANIL
I ,f CLE•
COUNCIL
-2- JUNE 9, 1982