Loading...
PC MINS 20090113 Approved Februar 4, 20 9 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Assistant Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the December 16, 2008 meeting the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's conditional approval of the proposed St. John Fisher master plan. Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 2 and six items of correspondence for agenda item No. 4. Vice Chairman Lewis reported that he had been contacted by residents regarding the status of the Trader Joe's project. Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, and Tetreault reported that they had met with Steve Kuykendall to discuss the results of a survey put out by Marymount College. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Variance (Case No. ZON2008-00489)° 28060 Lobrook Drive Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining that at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had approved the staircase component of the Variance, however had raised concerns with the wall, and had directed the applicant to redesign the wall. He explained that the redesigned wall no longer requires a Variance, and staffs recommendation is to receive and file the status report. Commissioner Knight moved to receive and file the status report, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. No objection. 2. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2007-002431. 30359 Hawthorne Blvd. Vice Chairman Lewis recused himself from this item, as he was not present at the previous public hearing and was not able to watch the video of the meeting or read the minutes. Assistant Planner Kim presented he staff report, giving a brief history of the project and explained the scope of the revised project. She stated that staff felt that the Conditional Use Permit findings can be met with the co-location of antennas as proposed, and therefore, if this proposal addresses the Commission's concerns expressed at the last meeting, staff was recommending the Commission conceptually approve the project and adopt an appropriate Resolution of approval at the next meeting under Consent Calendar. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt staff's recommendation, as he felt this redesign has addressed the issues addressed at the previous meeting, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0) with Vice Chairman Lewis recused. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Grading Permit & Height Variation (Case No. ZON2008-00450)° 43 Avenida Corona Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Grading Permit and Height Variation. She noted one neighbor who expressed a concern that the proposed residence will obstruct their view. Staff did a view analysis from the residence, and while staff agreed that the new house will block some of the ocean view, staff did not consider the amount of view blocked to be significant. Therefore, staff was able to make the necessary to recommend approval of the Grading Permit and Height Variation as conditioned in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 2 Commissioner Knight noted that from the proposed balcony, one may possibly be able to look directly into a neighboring yard's pool area. He questioned if there is a privacy issue with the deck and if staff had any concerns. Assistant Planner Harwell explained that staff felt that the same privacy issues would be evident with a single story home. She also noted that the height of the balcony does not exceed 16 feet and therefore a privacy analysis is not necessary. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Charles Belak-Berger (Architect) explained that he has tried to grade down to create a one-story building from the street. He has lowered the pitch of the roof and will use a high-grade asphalt shingle or a metal material that very closely resembles an asphalt shingle roof. He agreed with staff's findings and conditions of approval. Chairman Perestam asked if there had been discussion regarding landscaping plans which may help with the privacy issue. Mr. Belak-Berger answered that there has not been landscaping discussions yet, however he would be happy to discuss landscaping with staff if needed. Jean Comings (46 Avenida Corona) stated her property abuts the applicant's property and was concerned about the drainage. She wanted to be sure that the applicant's property does not drain onto her driveway. Mr. Belak-Berger (in rebuttal) stated that grading and drainage issues will be addressed in Building and Safety during plan check. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner was pleased with the design of the house and was in favor of the project. Commissioner Knight agreed, adding that it is a good example of a project taking into consideration the neighborhood compatibility components and still achieve the goals and needs of the owner. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution thereby approving the Height Variation and Grading Permit as conditioned in the staff report, seconded y Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). 4. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Zone Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Variance, Tentative Parcel Map & Environmental Assessment (Case Nos. ZON2008-00649 & SUB 2008-00008)° Northwest corner of Crenshaw Blvd. & Crestridge Road Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 3 Director Rojas began by explaining that the City owns the property and has contracted with the developer to develop the property with an affordable housing project for the City. He stated that the City has a number of policies related to affordable housing, as well as the State requirements involved. He stated that there are a number of policy decisions that the City Council has already made to put this project in motion, and there may be questions regarding those policies. However, he felt it would be best to direct questions and concerns on policy to the City Council, and the Planning Commission should look at this project from a land use perspective. Deputy Director Pfost gave a brief presentation on affordable housing, explaining it is a way that the State is dealing with the population growth in the State. He explained that the Department of Housing and Community Development requires every jurisdiction to show how it meets a housing need to satisfy the growing population in the State, and how the City is taking steps to meet this requirement. He explained that one possible way to meet the affordable housing component of the construction need defined by the State is through the affordable housing project proposed at the Crestridge site. He also noted that per State law, the City's Redevelopment Agency is required to spend twenty percent of its tax increment towards affordable housing. He explained that the City purchased the Crestridge property in 2000 using affordable housing funds with the intent to build affordable housing at the site. He stated that he would be happy to answer questions regarding policy issues set by the City Council, however he reminded the Commission that there has been quite a bit of policy discussion through the City Council and direction on affordable housing and the Planning Commission's role is to focus on the land use issues. Mr. Pfost described the project, explaining that the style of architecture and types of material used would be of a type that would blend in with the site and other sites along Crestridge Road, noting that it would be important for the project to have a residential type of appearance to be consistent with the single family residences in the neighborhood. He pointed out that a big component of the project is the grading, as the site will be substantially lowered as part of the proposed project. He explained that the site has quite a bit of uncompacted fill through the creation of Crenshaw Blvd. and Crestridge Road. Further, staff wanted to make sure the project did not encroach into any views and was not overly imposing being on top of a hill. As a result of the grading, there are some fairly large retaining walls proposed on the property. He showed several pictures over the site taken from locations in the area. He stated that a finding within the Conditional Use Permit is whether there will be any traffic impacts related to the proposed project. He stated that a traffic study was prepared for the project, and is included in the staff report. He briefly summarized the traffic study and stated that the study determined there will be no significant cumulative impact related to the project in the amount increase in traffic at the intersection. The study also looked at the need for a deceleration lane for the project and determined that the lane was not needed given the current width of Crestridge Road and the ability of cars to access the property. He stated that the traffic study has been reviewed by the City's traffic advisor, who generally supports the traffic study with a few minor changes needed to address certain Planning commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 4 issues, and staff will be bringing a revised traffic study to the Commission at its next hearing for the project. He discussed the finding for the Conditional Use Permit as to whether or not the project will have significant adverse affects on adjacent properties. He noted the project design considers both view and visual impacts, it exceeds the setbacks, it reduces the grade, there will be landscaping incorporated into the project, and there will be no view impacts. Therefore, staff felt that this finding could be made. Deputy Director Pfost explained the need for the Grading Permit and noted that the project does not meet some of the criteria in criteria number 9. However, he noted that the Municipal Code established the criteria and does allow for deviation to those criteria for certain circumstances. He stated that staff feels those deviations can occur based upon the existing topographic conditions of the site and the need to recompact and lower the site. He stated that the City Geologist has reviewed the initial geology report for the site and has requested some additional information from the applicant. Mr. Pfost explained the need for the Variance for the parking in the front yard setback. He noted that the state bonus density law, which is addressed in the staff report, does allow for a concession for affordable housing projects in regards to the reduction of required parking. He explained the State assigns parking requirements of one space for one bedroom and two spaces for two bedroom units with no guest parking. He noted that the proposed project does include guest parking, which results in the encroachment into the front yard setback. He stated that staff felt the necessary findings to approve the Variance can be made. Deputy Director Pfost discussed the need for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change in regards to land use, specifically dealing with the Institutional and Open Space Hazard boundaries on the property. He stated that staff feels the requests can be supported explaining that when the geologic lines on the property were first drawn in the zoning map and the General Plan Land Use Map in the 1970s, they were not drawn in relationship to any specific geological investigation. Because the proposed project will lower the site and change the site conditions, staff felt this could warrant the change in the General Plan and zoning. The project also proposes a zone text amendment, explaining staff felt it was important to clarify the definition of homes for the aged to make sure it includes the social services aspect of the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed that it is the Planning Commission's role to look at the land use issues, noting the various applications involved. However, given the amount of information and the number of applications involved, including the comments from the many public speakers, he did not think the time line suggested in the staff report was reasonable. He asked staff if they felt this suggested schedule was reasonable. Director Rojas explained that the City Council has made a policy decision and agreed that this is an opportunity to meet much of the City's affordable housing obligations, and in order to meet certain deadlines a tight schedule was formulated. He stated that Staff anticipated two public hearings before the Planning Commission and felt that was a Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 5 reasonable timeline as the project involves issues the Planning Commission has considered before and the Commission has had a lot of recent experience dealing with larger projects. He stated that staff cannot force the Planning Commission to abide by this schedule, and if the Commission feels they need more public hearings than scheduled, then that is what will be. Vice Chairman Lewis clarified that the purpose of this meeting is to hear from the public and then identify the issues that the Commission wants answers to or issues that need to be further addressed, which will then be presented at the next public hearing. Deputy Director Pfost answered that is the purpose of this meeting, and if more time is needed additional meetings will be scheduled. Commissioner Knight asked the status of the neighboring parcel. Deputy Director Pfost stated that there is a proposal for an 85 unit condominium project which includes five affordable units submitted to the City, however at this time the application is incomplete. Commissioner Knight asked, as proposed, what the relationship would be between the City and Amcal. Deputy Director Pfost explained that Amcal would own the property, Amcal would be the developer, and would manage the property. Chairman Perestam asked staff, when referring to the State parking laws versus what is in the City's Municipal Code regarding parking, do the City's rules override the State's since the City's rules are more restrictive. Deputy Director Pfost answered that in this type of situation the State requirement that no guest parking is required would rule over the City's requirement. In this situation staff felt that it was important to have guest parking at the site and included it in the plan. Chairman Perestam asked why the parcel is being subdivided as proposed, and not subdivided in such a way as to allow more room for the parking and give more flexibility to the overall design of the project. Deputy Director Pfost referred to a map showing the NCCP boundary lines, noting it is very similar to where the parcel map is being subdivided. He also noted the steep slopes on the property in relation to where the property is to be subdivided. Chairman Perestam referred to the zone text amendment, and asked how staff recommended this change rather than recommending a change to a multi-family zoning district. Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 6 Deputy Director Pfost explained that staff felt the use of homes for the aged was a use more consistent with an age restricted type product. Staff was concerned that it not only be an age restricted product, but also provide some type social or educational type of services to the residents of the product to be more in line with the Institutional land use district. Staff was concerned about changing it to a multi-family land use district, noting that it would be difficult to restrict development to any age bracket. Director Rojas added that the zone text amendment was not being proposed by the developer, but rather by City staff and the City Attorney. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. David Yarden (speaking on behalf of the applicant) stated that he is available to answer any questions the Commission may have. He added that for the past 15 years Amcal has been specializing in developing, building, and operating affordable housing. He stated that this is a challenging site to work with in terms of the topography, but feels the plan before the City is a viable plan. He also stated that they have worked very hard to minimize the aesthetic and adverse impacts this development could have on the surrounding areas. Commissioner Knight asked if the 55 age restriction applies to the person applying for the unit or does it apply to all occupants of the unit. Mr. Yarden explained that there is a strict legal answer to the question and a practical answer to the question. He explained that by law, the State of California and the civil code for a senior project requires that at least one occupant be 55 years of age or older. Since this is an affordable housing project, all of the income of the tenants in the unit must be accounted for, and if they are over the income limit they would not qualify for the unit. As a practical matter, he said they have never seen in any of their communities where a 55 year old tenant qualifies and brings in several much younger people to live in the unit. Therefore, what they tend to see are single elderly tenants or elderly couples living in the units. Commissioner Knight stated that a married man age 55 could qualify with his wife who is not working and their teenage child. He wanted to better understand what the profile of this particular project will be. Anthony Sandoval (Western Seniors Housing) stated his company manages 2,100 senior affordable housing units throughout Southern California. He explained that the company has to follow fair housing standards when leasing the affordable units. He explained that allows them to set up a resident selection criteria which can include criteria for the second occupant. He stated that as long as the standards are applied across the board and are the same for everyone who applies, the fair housing requirements are met. He added that in the 2,100 units the company manages, they have never had the situation with the 55 year old resident, his wife, and younger child. Planning commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 7 Commissioner Tomblin asked if the age restriction can be at 62 rather than 55. Mr. Sandoval answered that the age requirement can be raised to 62, noting however that at 62 it is required that all residents be at least 62 years of age. Ricky De La Rosa (Withee Malcom Architects) stated he is the architect for the project and available for questions. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. De La Rosa to address the 45 foot tall retaining wall proposed for the property in terms of finishes, landscaping, and overall aesthetics. Mr. De La Rosa explained that the wall itself is shown as a retaining wall, however the intent is for it not to be a solid wall. He stated that there are many options, such as planting vegetation on the wall so that it becomes a green wall. He stated that there are enough distances between the structure and the retaining wall that it can be a landscape screen. He also noted that the plan before the Commission is a conceptual plan at this point and the wall is still being evaluated, as it is a response to the site slope and the cut required to lower the pad. Commissioner Tomblin questioned why there is no covered parking shown on the plan. Deputy Director Pfost stated that there is no requirement for covered parking, but the Planning Commission can request covered parking. Commissioner Tomblin asked what the company's estimated cost per unit is for construction. David Yarden noted that the parking on the site is on-grade parking, and covering the parking would, he felt, be less aesthetically appealing. Regarding the cost per unit, he explained the company is still in the design stage and therefore he does not have a final construction set of drawings to know what the cost per unit will be. He added that all construction done by the company is done to the same standards as market rate apartments. He estimated the cost to be at least $250,000 per unit. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Yarden how he would feel if the Planning Commission were to recommend raising the age restriction to 62 years of age. Mr. Yarden stated he would have to analyze that restriction. He explained the age restrictions are governed by the regulatory agreement. On this project there would be two agreements, one executed with the State of California and one with Redevelopment Agency of the City. Commissioner Tomblin addressed the retaining wall, and noted that it appears to be two feet over the roof line of the building. Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 8 Darin Hansen (Amcal) explained that the retaining wall, at its highest point, is two feet above the building. However, the wall is not straight across, and it a very small portion of the wall at its highest point that is above the building. He stated that at the next meeting the Commission will be provided with a cross section showing the wall. Commissioner Gerstner discussed the height of the wall and asked Mr. Hansen they chose this conceptual design as the good solution for this lot. Mr. Hansen explained that in order to start with a pad he needed to look at all of the grading to determine the best solution to create the pad. In doing this, several options were considered. He explained there was an option to take the retaining wall and reducing it. However, to reduce the wall he will have to grade into the adjacent property. He noted that this option could reduce the height of the wall by ten feet, and he will continue to look into this option. Another option is to create a wall that is stepped in height. Another option in reducing the height of the wall is to pull the building forward to Crestridge Road. Chairman Perestam asked for an explanation on the order of magnitude of the benefit of this project for state funding. Mr. Yarden explained they are operating under two constraints. He stated that in order for the City to meet its housing goals and to use the funds available, the project needs to be constructed by March 2010. Secondly, in order to build the project they must obtain the funding. One of the major sources of funding is tax credits awarded by the State on a competitive basis. He stated that there is an early April deadline to obtain this funding without which the project will not move forward. He also added that this funding is very competitive, especially in that they are competing with the City of Los Angeles. He felt that, based on the current economy and other factors, that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has a much better chance of getting the funding in April rather than October. Chairman Perestam asked what will happen if the City does not apply for these tax credits in April but waits until the next round later in the year. Mr. Yarden explained that impact to the City if tax credits are not applied for in April may be that the City may face penalties from the State because it is not meeting its housing .goals. He stated that those issues have been explored in much more detail with the City Council. Deputy Director Pfost clarified that the Agency bought the property in March 2000 and has 10 years in which to use the property. If the property is not used by March 2010, it will have to be sold and the funds will be put back into the affordable housing account and the City must find a use for these funds within a three year time period. The City may also be faced with penalties from the State. Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 9 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if getting funding in October rather than April would allow the City to be at the point in April 2010 they need to be in order to meet its commitment. Deputy Director Pfost felt the City will be in the appropriate position if funding is received in October. He explained that the City Attorney felt that as long as the City has the funding to move the project forward and the plans are plan check with Building and Safety, that the State would then penalize the City for not meeting its goals. Director Rojas added that there have been lengthy policy issues discussions with the City Council on this topic and the City Council has indicated they want this to move forward, which is what staff is trying to accomplish. He hoped that the Planning Commission acknowledges this and will try to make it all happen. Sholeh Djahed (5457 Middlecrest Road) stated that she is against the project. He stated that from inside her home and her backyard she will see the entire project. She felt this will affect the value of her home and those in her neighborhood. She questioned why the City has to build 40 low income rental apartments on one location. She also felt that the grading and heavy equipment used for the grading will greatly affect the landfill areas in the Ridgecrest neighborhood. She questioned the purpose of the project and what it will do to benefit the City as a whole. Jim Hathaway referred to page 6 of the staff report, and questioned the word "homes" for the aged. He stated that was changed, as it used to say "home" for the aged. He questioned whether adding the "s" was done properly. On page 10 of the staff report he questioned how traffic directions will be enforced. On page 11 of the staff report he questioned the definition of aesthetically pleasing. On page 13 of the report which discusses grading, he asked how a 26 foot retaining wall is not considered a disturbance to the topography. He referred to finding No. 8 on page 14, and felt it was ironic that the City was requiring the developer to pay money to mitigate the killing of endangered species. He referred to page 16, noting that in the grading discussion six of eight points are considered not consistent. He felt this should raise red flags with the Commission. He felt that staff has done a great job in trying to push this project forward, however he reminded the Commission and staff that they work for the City residents and he hasn't heard anyone say anything positive about the project. He suggested the Commission reject the project or push it back to the City Council, and .instead look at negotiating with someone in Sacramento to put an open space park in the area and give the money to a City that needs the help. Ken Dyda gave a brief history of this parcel and the attempts to develop the property, noting that the City Council has been trying to develop the property for ten years. He noted that the adjacent parcel that will be part of the Crestridge LLC development is going to do some grading, and questioned if the grading done on the boundary that property and this property would have the ability to lower the height of this proposed retaining wall. He felt it was unfortunate that there are these time constraints with the project, but felt that the Commission will have to work more diligently to meet these Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 10 deadlines. He encouraged the Commission to work diligently, thoroughly, and expeditiously. John Polen stated he is against the project, as he felt it was important to preserve and improve the appearance of the community, and he did not think this would be an advantageous aesthetic addition to the community. He felt that apartments that do not have covered parking or parking within the units look like cheap apartments. He felt this intersection is a dangerous intersection and he challenged the traffic study. He did not a resident or developer would ever be able to get approvals for a project such as this and that there is a conflict of interest involved. He recommended this project be put up for a general election and let the entire City determine whether or not this project should be allowed at this location. Susan Anderson stated she is against the project because of the high density and the home value depreciation that it would cause the Crestridge area. Luella Wike asked, once the property has been given to the developer, what benefits the City will get from this property. She asked if the City gets any portion of the rents or any type of reimbursements. She also suggested that Rancho Palos Verdes residents have first rights to those units before opening them up to residents from other cities. She questioned why the City can't put the age restriction so that both or all residents of the apartments be 55 years old. She referred to the development at Villa Capri and explained that at the time the City required a certain number of those condominiums be low income. She asked staffs to provide to the Planning Commission information on how many of those low cost units are still in existence that apply to the Housing Element. She also stated that there are four cities on the Peninsula, and she did not think they have low cost housing. She felt the only reason Rancho Palos Verdes has to address the issue is because of the Redevelopment Agency and felt that maybe it is time to eliminate the Redevelopment Agency. Chuck Taylor stated he is most definitely opposed to the proposed housing project. He stated that the contract to control the tenants will be a nightmare to enforce. He also noted that this structure will be the first structure seen in Rancho Palos Verdes when coming up Crenshaw Boulevard, and felt that the first impression of the City will be one of extremely low income families. He stated that he could fill this meeting room three to four times over with people who object to the proposed project. Tom Elder stated he supports the project and noted that he would be eligible to apply to move into one of the units. Graham Robertson stated he moved to his home six months ago to get away from the high density living in Hermosa Beach. This proposed project will allow 100 people to live on 2.8 acres. Carmela Bonello distributed pictures to the Commission that were taken from her backyard at 5437 Middlecrest Road. She was very concerned that the low income Planning commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 11 housing project would great decrease the already decreasing property values in her neighborhood. Janet Hausrath stated she has been in real estate for quite some time and assured the Commission that this project next to multi-million dollar homes will be a blight on the landscape and will further reduce the values of their homes. She stated that rentals are a worse case scenario and the transitory nature of the tenants coupled with fifty nine uncovered parking spaces for low-income cars negates all that she and her neighbors have worked to maintain. She felt that there are many locations throughout the City where some low income housing can be provided. She questioned why no EIR is required for the project. Linda Puentes stated that living on Mistridge Drive she understands why the applicant is proposing to grade the area down so that it won't have an impact on the residents' views. She stated, however, that she is still opposed to the project due to the parking, the sound of car alarms that will be going off in this outdoor parking area, the overall added noise that will result from the project, and the added traffic at the already dangerous intersection. She felt that a park or something that is more in line visually and aesthetically with the neighboring building should be placed at the site. John Chen stated he is opposed to the proposed project. He did not think there is a good reason to build forty units on one site and if affordable housing is spread throughout the City it will not be as noticeable. He explained that he works for the city of Los Angeles, and he did not think that there would be any advantage in applying for funding in April as opposed to October, as the city of Los Angeles has a very large amount of project that need funding and will be applying in April and October for this funding. He felt that it was very important to prepare an EIR for this project, noting that anytime a change is made to the General Plan an EIR should be prepared. David Yarden (in rebuttal) responded to a question asked by a resident as to whether or not the City will be reimbursed in any way by the developer. He explained that the agreement that will govern the relationship between Amcal and the City provides for the sharing of residual receipts. With respect to property values, he felt that was an inappropriate issue for the Planning Commission to address, however he was not aware of any evidence that correlates the reduction of property values with affordable housing. The only study he was aware of was from the University of Wisconsin which found no correlation between reduced property values and affordable housing. Commissioner Knight asked if the units will be owned or rented. Mr. Yarden answered that this will be a rental community. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the design presented is a design requested by the City or if this is a design created solely by the architect. Planning commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 12 Mr. Yarden explained that the City provided a set of requirements in their request for proposal. In order to accommodate the specifications in the proposal, the site plan presented was their solution that accommodates all of the city's requirements and accomplishes the goals in a cost effective manner. Commissioner Tomblin explained that he has issues with the proposed retaining wall. He stated that he respects the dilemma the City Council and staff are in, however he felt that there are two sets of standards and the Planning Commission would never consider a 25 foot tall retaining wall on private property. He found it hard to turn down a home owner asking for a 7 foot tall retaining wall on their property and then try to force through a 25 foot tall retaining wall on City property. Mr. Yarden understood the concerns, adding that this is not an easy site to work with. He felt this is the best solution that will accomplish the most goals as possible. He explained that moving the building closer to the street will lower the height of the retaining wall, but parking spaces will be lost. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff their opinion on the discussion of age 62 versus age 55. Deputy Director Pfost answered that staff does not have an issue with the change in age as long as there are no legal issues he is not aware of. Commissioner Ruttenberg referred to the language change for the definition of homes for the aged. He asked staff why they are being so specific rather than just adding language to say that "this sub-paragraph shall include" and add the rest of the language. Director Rojas noted the proposed language was suggested by the City Attorney to clarify the intent of what is meant by homes for the aged. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked how many affordable housing units the City is required to provide. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the City is required to provide 26 units in this planning period which ends in 2014. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked why the City is proposing to provide 40 units. Deputy Director Prost explained that when staff released the request for proposal for this project it was indicated that at least 26 units were needed, but the project could be up to 40 units. He stated that the developer for this project is proposing 40 units. He also explained that when this planning period ends in 2014 the State will give the City a new affordable housing unit requirement. He stated that the number of units over the 26 required from this period may be used as a credit for the next planning period. Planning commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 13 Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned why the City has decided to put all of the affordable housing units on one piece of property rather than spread them out throughout the City. Deputy Director Pfost explained that the City made this decision in 2000 when we purchased this piece of property. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that one of his concerns is the 59 open parking spaces. He asked staff to comment. Deputy Director Pfost explained that in an Institutional land use more than 59 open parking spaces can be allowed. He noted that Belmont currently has more than 59 open spaces. He stated that most likely any project developed on this property will have open parking spaces. He added there are numerous ways to screen the open parking spaces to address some of the aesthetic issues involved. Commissioner Tetreault asked if the Planning Commission is being asked to review this application as if it were being presented by a private developer not in partnership with the City, and review the project to see whether or not it would meet the criteria and standards that the Planning Commission would normally review for a private development. Or was the Planning Commission being asked to review this as a City project that needs to be reviewed expeditiously. Deputy Director Pfost stated that within the staff report are the findings for the Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and criteria to approve a grading application. Whether this project is part City owned or not, these findings must still be made. Therefore, if the Planning Commission cannot make certain findings they should make recommendations and/or conditions to the project to reduce the impacts so that the findings can be made. Director Rojas acknowledged that this is a complicated issue because the Commission must apply the rules as it would any other project but be cognizant that this is a City project. He agreed that the Commission must make the necessary findings in order to approve the project, however noted that interwoven into the issue is the debate regarding affordable housing and certain policy decisions. He noted that if the Commission has a concern about density, for example, and recommends fewer units and the developer says that this is not then a feasible project, then the City Council will have to ultimately deal with that decision in some way. Chairman Perestam asked if the City Council has seen this proposed design, or if the Planning Commission is the first body to see the proposed design. Deputy Director Pfost stated that there was a basic presentation given to the City Council in December, which included a site plan and potential elevation proposals. The City Council also has a sub-committee of two Council members that have met with the developer and reviewed the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 14 Commissioner Gerstner felt that this particular scheme on the property has resulted in a large amount of grading, very high retaining walls and a character that is more of an apartment building, which is out of character for the neighborhood. He felt there may be schemes that would help reduce those conditions that have driven past the norm that would be acceptable and probably could be approved quickly. He wanted to know that the other possible macro schemes have been analyzed and they work and don't work, and what the value trade-offs are before he can say he needs to find a way to make this particular scheme work. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he was not able to make finding No. 9 for the grading, as he felt the grading is excessive and the retaining wall is too tall. In reference to the Institutional zoning, he felt the City was trying to fit an apartment building into an Institutional zone under the guidance of homes for the aged. He felt he could accept the Institutional housing if the housing were at age 62 or above. He explained that Belmont and Canterbury are both at the higher age restriction. He felt this minimum age restriction would comply more with the Institutional zoning. He also felt that limiting residents to 62 and above would alleviate some of the parking concerns and reduce some of the strain on the parking. He also agreed with Commissioner Gerstner, in that a redesign of the project may result in something more amenable and not conflict so much with the General Plan and with what the Commission has denied in the past. Commissioner Knight also wanted staff to explore the age restriction of 62 and older. He felt this was more in line with the thinking behind senior affordable housing and would be more in line with the community. He also agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments regarding the wall and redesign options. He asked if the left turn restriction is one that will be enforceable by the Sheriffs Department and will the sign be placed on private property or in the public right-of-way. Deputy Director Pfost stated he would have to research the placement of the sign and the enforceability. Commissioner Knight asked staff if giving Rancho Palos Verdes residents first priority in the rental of these affordable units was a possibility. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the City cannot give preference in the rental of these apartments. Commissioner Knight also felt it would be helpful to have an idea of the proposed grading plans of the neighboring 9 acre parcel. He noted that if they were proposing to grade the property down to create a pad, that might help with some of the issues of the retaining wall on this property. Deputy Director Pfost explained that staff has looked at the proposed grading plan for the neighboring parcel and has given the plan to Amcal, who determined the grading Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 15 would not affect the height of the proposed wall. He stated that staff will look into it further. Commissioner Knight requested that a condition be added to the Mitigated Negative Declaration that the light shields face downward so they don't spill onto neighboring properties. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he would like to see what this project would look like without the big wall so that the project is moved forward closer to the street and the parking more towards the back of the property. Chairman Perestam asked the applicant to comment on what's been said by the Commissioners in terms of modifications to the proposed project. Commissioner Gerstner added that the Commissioners want to see alternate schemes that are presented to the Commission in a very short time frame. Commissioner Tetreault suggested a sub-committee be formed of two or three Planning Commissioners who can meet with the City Council sub-committee and the developer to discuss the issues this project presents. Director Rojas stated that the Planning Commission sub-committee could not meet with the City Council sub-committee unless it is a noticed meeting. However the Planning Commission sub-committee could meet with the developer and staff without a public notice being required. Mr. Yarden explained that there are numerous constraints with this piece of property and several alternate designs were considered. However, given the constrains on the property he felt the proposed design that makes sense for this project and this cost. He stated to do other designs are not impossible, given enough money. However, the constraint is that there are limited sources of funding for an affordable housing project. Given the money and sources available, he did not think a project with less than 40 units was feasible. He added that he has taken all of the comments made by the public and Commission very seriously and look to see if they missed anything and if there is another way to develop this property. .Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he was having trouble with the proposed zone change. He felt it was somehow inappropriate to design this amendment change to this zone, which is really being done for this one project only. He questioned why the City can't down-zone this property. Deputy Director Pfost clarified that the zone change and the General Plan amendment are not related to the use as much as to the change in the boundary designation for the open space hazard boundary. The zone text amendment is a separate issue that expands the language for homes for the aged. Planning commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 16 Commissioner Ruttenberg understood, adding that he was uncomfortable with the specific language of"home for the aged." He questioned why it isn't referred to as "senior housing". Deputy Director Pfost stated that it can be referred to as senior housing and allow that in the Institutional zone. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that the public hearing has to be continued, as the comment period has not yet closed. He suggested, however, that the public hearing be continued to the meeting of February 10, 2009 rather than January 27t . He noted that the Marymount project is on the agenda for January 27th and combining this with the Marymount project would make for a very long meeting. Deputy Director Pfost stated that the public hearing can be moved to February 10th; however it will make future scheduling and meeting future deadlines very tight. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of February 10, 2009, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Gerstner suggested forming a subcommittee to work with staff and the applicant between now and the next public hearing. He stated that he would be willing to sit on that subcommittee. Commissioners Tetreault and Knight stated that they could also sit on that subcommittee. Commissioner Ruttenberg withdrew his motion to continue the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner moved to form a subcommittee of Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, and Tetreault to meet with the applicant and staff prior to the next public hearing to discuss alternate schemes for the proposed project, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Unanimously approved. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to February 10, 2009, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of December 9, 2008 Chairman Perestam noted a typo on page 1 of the minutes. Commissioner Knight noted a correction to page 19 of the minutes. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (4-0-2) with Chairman Perestam recused as Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 17 he was not present at that meeting and Commissioner Ruttenberg abstaining since he was recused from the Marymount item. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-agenda for the meeting of January 27, 2009 Chairman Perestam moved to reorder the agenda so that the Marymount item is the last item on the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved without objection. Commissioner Tetreault reported that, after speaking with the City Attorney, he will recuse himself from any further public hearings regarding the Marymount project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:58 p.m. Planning commission Minutes January 13,2009 Page 18