Loading...
PC MINS 19771221M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting f, --_,,,ember 21, 1977 The meeting was called to -order at 7:43 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman McTaggart. PRESENT: Bacharach, Hinchliffe (arrived late), Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Associate Planner Gary Weber. Mr. McTaggart added to the agenda as item D. under Old Business the approval of Resolution P;C. No. 77-24. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7977 Mr. Weber explained that included in Forrestal Drive near Palos Verdes the agenda packet was the draft reso- Drive South, Lot 4, Tract 26414 lution and conditions for this parcel Applicant: Palos Verdes Properties map, and that staff recommended approval subject to the following changes in the, conditions: that #15 and #20 be deleted because they are duplications of conditions #5 and #9, respectively. Mr. Hughes expressed concern about condition #21 and the impact the under - grounding would have on the homes abutting the project site. Mr. Weber explained that the condition was worded broadly to accommodate whatever the Edison Company recommends and what the City would like. He said he was not fully apprised of what the Edison Company has planned for the area, as Mr. Turner was the contact person. He said the applicant had expressed a similar concern. Mr. McTaggart explained that the public participation on this item was closed, but asked the applicant to respond to the above concern. Mike Kochan said the pole lines serve the six lots that back up to the project site. He said they would underground any new service on the pro- ject site and requested that the wording of condition #21 be changed. After discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to strike the words "...and those within the abutting right of way" and replace with "...which shall be taken from Forrestal Drive." Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to approve Resolution P.C. No. 77-25 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", with the following revisions: that conditions #15 and #20 be deleted and the wording of condition #21 be changed as stated above. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: Hinchliffe CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 Revision North side of Palos Verdes Drive South, east of Forrestal Drive Applicant: Western -America Dev.- Co. the staff recommended condition as Mr. Hinchliffe arrived at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Weber reviewed the background of this item, the requested changes, and the suggested revised wording. He referred the Commission to the letters included in their agendas from the applicant. Staff recommendation was for approval of the request subject to stated in the staff report. Mr. Rosenberg felt that the placement view protection of the street above. effect of the proposed change on the formed. of the structures was critical for He was also concerned about the homeowners association which would be Mr. Hughes concurred and did not feel that the purpose of a residential planned development was to allow development on a single lot basis, parti- cularly this specific project. Mrs. Bacharach was not comfortable with the requested changes, as the Commission's review of the project was not done on this basis. Mr. Hinchliffe said he was going to have to abstain as he was not on the Commission at the time of its original review of this project. Mr. McTaggart concurred with the other Commissioners and felt that there may be a number of grading situations arise where view obstruction could be substantial. He said he could not consider the changes unless the Com- mission thoroughly reviewed the entire project agdin. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to deny the re- quest for revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 23. Mr. McTaggart felt that the applicant should have the opportunity to speak, if he desires; therefore, the motion and second were withdrawn. Russ McGuire, South Bay Engineering, representing the applicant, said he concurred with the conditions recommended by the staff. Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to deny the re- quest for revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 23. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hinchliffe ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33093 Mr. Weber reviewed the background from CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 29 the previous meeting and discussed the West of Ocean Crest & Island View revised tentative map and the revised Applicant: South Bay Engineering development plans, suggesting that two Landowner: O. K. Tingle modifications to the circulation system be considered by the Commission. He said the applicant, as requested, sub- mitted drawings showing two options for a one-way circulation system, but - felt that either option would result in increased length of vehicular travel and would have a high violation rate. After review of the plans, both the planning staff and the Public Works Director concurred with the applicant. Re the site design, staff felt that a different design which relocates or clusters the units could take advantage of view potential, open space, and structural relationships. He also discussed incorporation of the sidewalk and emergency access. Mr. McTaggart re -opened the public hearing. Russ McGuire, South Bay Engineering, representing the applicant, discussed the modifications made at the request of the Commission at its last meeting. He said the northerly line of Lot 24 and Lot 25 has been pulled back to the zoning boundary lines, and that Lot 24 has also been redrawn, including the road. He explained the technical difficulty in defining a limit line, saying that the applicant does not want to lose the 3/4 unit credit, but that it must be included in the tract map. He reviewed the tentative grad- ing, and the access. Omer Tingle, 26846 Basswood, said they could not proceed with architectural drawings without knowing the Commission's feelings on this plan. He re- quested direction from the Commission re the street plan. Fay Fowler, Seagate, Building B, expressed concern about view obstruction and traffic. She said she was in favor of a one-way road and asked about the gate. 12/21/77 Planning Commission Minutes -2- Mr. McTaggart said under the revised plan, the gate would not be moved. Frances Marks, Seagate, Building D, was concerned about safety aspects and still felt a separate road should be developed because of traffic, noise, and pollution. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was continued to another time. After discussion it was the consensus of the Commission to have the cul-de- sac with emergency access. The Commission was concerned about the elevation of the proposed units and view impact. The applicant agreed to keep the elevation down as much as possible. There was a consensus that the entire road and pedestrian walkway should be on Lot 24. There was also a consensus that the sidewalk go all the way down to the end. Mr. McGuire said they would change the boundary line but would like to stop the walkway right before the last three units. The Commission reached a consensus, agreeing with Mr. McGuire. Mr. Hughes felt that proper barriers should be placed along the edge of the southern road (which will be the future fire road) to prevent vehicles from falling off into the canyon. Mr. McGuire did not feel the barrier was necessary as the road was to be an emergency/service type road only. The other Commissioners agreed that the safety should be improved along the edge of that road. ya The CommissiA' discussed the three units at the bottom and reached a con- sensus for -a three -unit cluster of some kind, saying that single family would be fine. The applicant agreed to provide alternative patterns and designs. RESOLUTION P.C. NO. 77-24 Roll call vote was as follows: Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 77-24. AYES: Bacharach, Hinchliffe, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: None RECESS At 9:55 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. with the same members present. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 37 Mr. Weber reviewed the staff report, 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South describing the proposed improvements. Applicant: Hanna -Barbera Marineland He discussed the project considera- Landowner: Hollywood Park, Inc. tions; said a Negative Declaration was granted on August 5, 1977, and dis- cussed traffic, parking and archaeolo- gical/paleontolical resources. He discussed the proposed grading which will occur only in the area of the proposed multi-purpose building and discussed the structure height, showing pictures indicating view impact from various locations. He also discussed a list of questions and requests re the im- plementation program and said there would be further discussion re lighting, audio, public address system, landscaping, etc. He also mentioned overflow parking. Staff recommended that the public hearing be opened and major issues discussed. Mr. McTaggart explained the public hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. 12/21/77 Planning Commission Minutes -3- 0 0 Michael Downs, 30138 Avenida Tranquilla, general manager of Marineland, said they had originally proposed a larger project, but that due to the process of sale and the closing of Marineland, they are unable to do a $4,500,000 job in the length of time necessary. Therefore, they are pro- posing one-half of the original proposal and will get to Phase #2 in a year or so. He said their goal was to grow more slowly and with solidity-. He responded to the questions posed by staff re the implementation program. Re parking he said there would be no loss of parking spaces, that the em- ployee parking will just be relocated, and that they would be starting a ride -along program. He said they would provide a total of 2420 parking spaces. Colin Lennard of Burke, Williams and Sorensen, 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, City Attorney for the City of Rolling Hills Estates, presented a letter to the Commission. Mr. McTaggart noted that the letter appeared to address the environmental assessment rather than the conditional use permit request. Mr. Lennard said that was correct because they felt that the environmental assessment was not the proper vehicle for this project, that an environ- mental impact report should have been prepared. Director Hightower said a letter from the City of Rolling Hills Estates appealing the issuance of a Negative Declaration was received and that the appeal was not granted by the City Council. She pointed out that the Planning Commission does not have jurisdiction over that area. The Commission felt that all discussion tonight should be limited to the conditional use permit only. Mr. Lennard said he wished to address himself to the environmental assess- ment, as he felt the initial study was inadequate. He said their basic concern is that there is no document which they can intelligently evaluate to determine whether or not there are any significant issues. Ed Haworth, Consultant for the City of Rolling Hills Estates, said he had been asked to review the public documents on this project and determine whether or not there was enough information to make a decision. He felt information was lacking in the following areas: air quality; noise with respect to adjacent properties, increased traffic on highways, etc.; public services and facilities (police and fire); geology; and energy. Director Hightower stated that the City's procedure is to rely on the General Plan as well as the Coastal Plan, which incorporate environmental impact reports, and that the only information necessary to add is that which is specific to the project. William A. Law, 8405 Persian Lane, Playa del Rey, Consultant for the City of Rolling Hills Estates, suggested that a de -emphasis on already impacted routes be looked into. He wondered if there have been any surveys taken of people at the park re what route they take. He said they were concerned about the traffic impact on Palos Verdes Drive North. Harry Peacock, Rolling Hills Estates City Manager, 12 Seaview Drive South, Rolling Hills Estates, felt more information should be made available. He felt the City should find out if there would be an increase in cost for additional police and fire protection, should direct what routes should be taken after determining where accidents occur and the current traffic im- pact, etc. Mr. Lennard suggested that the Commission review the initial study and send it back to staff for a proper evaluation. Harvey Brown, 29234 Beachside Drive, president of the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association, felt the proposed project was excellent. He felt the environmental aspects have already been carefully reviewed. Hans Engel, 3213 Barkentine, was very pleased about the expansion, but ex- pressed some concern about the safety aspects of the road entrance. Mr. Downs said he has been in contact with the City of Rolling Hills Estates, offering to meet with them, and take them on a tour of the facility, and 12/21/77 Planning Commission Minutes -4- that none of the issues raised tonight were ever mentioned to him. He discussed the possibility of changing the Texaco station into a hospi- tality center. Mr. McTaggart asked for a more detailed study of this change of use of the Texaco station. Mr. Peacock felt that since the Texaco station conversion was not part of the original project, the application would need to be revised. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the public hearing was continued to the next meeting. Mr. Weber said he would check into permitted uses re the Texaco station to determine whether or not a conditional use permit is required for the pro- posed change. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the applicant should prepare more specific data re attendance figures for peak periods in order to review the conditional use permit. Mr. Hughes said in principle he could see no real problems, but was having difficulty determining how things would be without detailed information. Considering the size of the project, he felt the material and plans sub- mitted were inadequate. Mr. Rosenberg concurred, and expressed concern about the amount of grading required. Mr. Downs said they could not reduce the size of the building because it was to be used to store feed, etc., but they would work on reducing the grading as much as possible. The applicant is to provide more information on the maintenance building, present a clearer understanding of the entrance, provide specific informa- tion on the following components of the conditional use permit: Texaco station, grading, parking plan, and breakdown of projected attendance. Mr. Hughes also suggested a map showing access routes to direct people to the facility as part of the advertising. He requested some kind of outline showing how the applicant proposes to handle this. COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. McTaggart asked about the newly created grading on the Salvation Army site. Mr. Weber said it appears to follow the approved plan, but that he would further check into it. Mr. Rosenberg asked about the cars being advertised for sale on Palos Verdes Drive East and Crownview near Miraleste High School. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the grading on Abbottswood, as he felt they have graded more than the sixty yards which was approved and he also felt the wall exceeded the 3�-, feet which was approved. ADJOURNMENT At 12:50 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, January 10, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. 12/21/77 Planning Commission Minutes -5-