Loading...
PC MINS 19800610611.2 y /Yo M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting June 10, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by out -going Chairman Hinchliffe. Mr. Hinchliffe formally passed the gavel to Dr. Brown, the newly appointed Chairman, and wished him well. He also welcomed the newest Commission member, Dr. Baer, from the Environmental Committee. Chairman Brown welcomed Dr. Baer and thanked Mr. Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart (late arrival), Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Acting Director of Planning Gary Weber and Assistant Planner Sandra Lavitt. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hughes suggested continuing the ap- proval of minutes until Mr. McTaggart's arrival. The Commission agreed to move the item to follow the items under Old Business. GRADING APPLICATION NO. 442 Ms. Lavitt said the application was 6461 Chartres Drive (Lot 143, continued from the meeting of May 13 Tract 25160) in order to allow the applicant to re - Applicant: RST Construction design the project so that it would be Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. R. McCue closer in conformance to the Code. She referred to the comparison chart in the staff report related to retain walls, as originally proposed and as revised. Additionally, she said the applicant was proposing the creation of 12:1 slopes in the rear and side - yards. She said with some modifications the proposed slopes could be al- tered to a 3:1 slope. She said for the finished contours to be reasonably natural, the applicant should consider extending the limits of the grading line. Staff recommended that the Commission approve Grading No. 442 with the following changes: 1) extend the limits of grading at the rear of the site and create a slope no greater than 35 percent; and 2) increase the height of the concrete curb in the sideyards to a 32 -foot retaining wall and create slopes no greater than 35 percent. Mr. McTaggart arrived at 7:42 p.m. George Nakesone, representing the applicant, said the lot was difficult to develop. He said at the last meeting they discussed keeping the grading at a minimum. He said they were requesting 12:1 slopes. Mr. Hughes said the revised plans show a significant step in the right direction. He said with staff's recommendations he would have no problem approving the application. Mr. McTaggart felt it was a reasonable compromise considering what was originally submitted, and agreed with staff's recommendations. Mr. Hinchliffe concurred. Dr. Baer asked how far staff was proposing the 3:1 slope to go. Mr. Nakesone said they could not put a 3:1 slope there. Mr. Weber said staff did not analyze this from an engineering standpoint, but that a quick inhouse analysis indicated it could be done. Bob Tamai said there was no way to come up with that 3:1 slope. He said the further you go, the deeper you have to go. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to continue this item to give the applicant the opportunity to meet with staff and determine whether staff's recommendations were feasible or not. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSTAIN: Baer (because he was not present at the last meeting) ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35799 Mr. Weber said the public hearing was CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 56 continued from the February 12 meeting South of Palos Verdes Drive South to allow for further review and analy- at Conqueror Drive sis by the staff and project engineer. Applicant/Landowner: Petrous He referred to the major issues, as Industries, Inc. listed in the staff report, and said the critical issue was the Commission's need for alternative concepts. He said the main factor identified in the Sedway/Cooke Study was view, both focal and horizontal views. He said he prepared a scenario in an attempt to show what could happen. He referred to the chart in the staff report, providing quantifiable data, and sketches of the alternatives. He reviewed each of the four studies and said in staff's opinion study #3 was clearly the best of the studies prepared for this site. He said the residents have expressed a lot of concern over the location of the bluff road. He said the location was originally established in the Coastal Specific Plan. He said the City has planned so far for an 80 -foot right-of-way and that within that right- of-way Public Works was recommending a 40 -foot road with some sort of park- way on either side, then an 8 -foot bikeway, more green space, and then probably a 4 -foot walkway, followed by more green space. He said the loca- tion of the bluff road has been analyzed by the City, Sedway/Cooke, and the Coastal Commission. He said the policy was to allow direct access from a bluff road from the drive. Staff recommended that the Commission continue the public hearing and review the alternative designs and come up with a consensus. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Weber said the 40 -foot public street would contain one lane in each direction and parking on the inland side of the road. Dr. Brown said this was a continued public hearing; he explained public hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, 17430 South Prairie, said his client was hoping the Commission would choose alternative #4, as it makes much better use of the land, has the least amount of grading, and has larger lots. He said lots 8 and 9 could be moved forward and they could restrict lot 7 to a one-story home to eliminate any potential for view obstruction. He said alternative #4 offered better views from the interior of the site. He said alternative #3 would be their next choice. Ed Pearson, 4184 Maritime Road, vice-president of the Portuguese Bend Club Homeowners Association, said the impact of the Coastal Plan did not hit the residents until they had something concrete placed before them, i.e. this project. He submitted 78 petitions from the Portuguese Bend Club residents opposing the proposed thoroughfare. He said the primary concern was with 6/10/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- security. He said there would also be noise and trash problems, and head- lights would be shining into the homes in the evening. He said there were many serious traffic hazard problems along the Drive in that section of the City. He felt more attention should be given to these traffic problems. He said there was a large differential between the Drive and the property and that in order to provide a safe entrance, substantial grading would be required. He said another factor was the sight distance. He said there would be a lot of sight-seeing "Sunday drivers" and adequate sight distance would be important at that intersection. He felt the road should be moved to the east for a safer intersection, which would provide more privacy and security for the Portuguese Bend Club residents. He drew a sketch on the board, explaining his proposed changes. He felt lots which back onto streets had a higher crime rate. He said they were not objecting to the project or the number of units, but were objecting to the location of the bluff road. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to continue the public hearing. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSTAIN: Baer (because he was not present at the last meeting) ABSENT: None Mr. McTaggart said he was not opposed to moving the location of the road to reduce the grade of the entrance onto the bluff area. He agreed with staff that alternative #3 was the most desirable with the possibility of relocating the bluff road slightly to the east. Mr. Hughes did not feel that they should create -a residential structure on - the seaward side as proposed by Mr. Pearson, but strongly favored changing the alignment of the proposed road and transferring some of the open space to the seaward side so that it served as a sufficient landscaped buffer. He agreed they should look at another entrance location -for the road. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if Mr. Leonard was aware of the scenario which had been prepared. Mr. Leonard said he saw it -on -Friday for the first time. Mr. Hinchliffe concurred that if they tranferred some of the open space to the seaward side of the road it would solve the problems raised by Mr. Pearson. He said it was difficult getting out onto the Drive on a typical Sunday. Dr. Baer did not feel headlights from cars on the bluff road would shine into the homes at the Portuguese Bend Club. He said he would think the con- cept in the Coastal Plan was to have the road as far west as possible. He felt the Commission needed more information on the intersection, on the grade, etc. He said he preferred design #4 as he liked the open space be- tween the lots. Dr. Brown opposed placing a house between the road and the existing units. He said the major concerns in moving the road would be the grading problems and visibility problems. Mr. McTaggart asked if staff felt that realignment of the road would be a problem with the Coastal Commission. Mr. Weber said it would probably depend on how much it would be moved. He said he would do some investigating. He summarized the Commission comments as follows: they wanted refinement of design #3 with the bluff road further to the east as far as possible, minimizing grading, maximizing sight dis- tance and still following within the other constraints. 6/10/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mr. Hughes said staff should also take some preliminary looks at the inter- section. Mr. Weber said he would discuss it with Public Works. Dr. Brown said the item was continued until the applicant addressed the con- cerns discussed this evening. He noted there would not be further public notice on this item and encouraged the audience to keep in touch with staff to be apprised of when the next public hearing would be held. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and carried, with Dr. Baer and Mr. Hinchliffe abstaining, the minutes of the meeting of May 27, 1980 were approved with the following amendments: page 2, last paragraph, line 2, should read "...said if modifi- dations..."; page 5, paragraph 5, should read "...reducing:.off-site illumi- nation, windscreens..."; and page 6, last paragraph, 4th linefromthe bot- tom, should read "...Master Plan which..." RECESS At 9:20 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:23 p.m. with the same members present. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber referred to the memo from Councilman Ryan re inclusionary hous- ing. He said the City Council would like the Commission to give the information consideration and make some sort of recommendation on whether or not to pursue the concept further. He said essentially it takes a land use zoning classification other than resi- dential and establishes the ability for residential development to be in- cluded in non-residential zoning districts. He said he saw it as very specific word changes in the General Plan for very specific locations in the City. Re resale control of low/moderate units, he said there could be a housing authority or -something written in the CC&Rs. Mr. Hughes said if the price of the housing was controlled it would be less than the fair market value. Mr. Weber said HUD, SCAG, etc., have formulas that allow for units like this to keep pace with the cost of living. Mr. Hinchliffe said the concept was an old one and has worked in a lot of other areas. He said a lot of people in the development business view this as a viable concept. Mr. McTaggart agreed it probably had some validity in a large-scale real estate project but did not know that it was viable in this area. Dr. Brown suggested perhaps a scaled-down version, modified to meet the needs and expectations of this City. Mr. McTaggart did not feel it was possible to scale it down. Mr. Hinchliffe said it was a very common form of habitat all around the world. Mr. McTaggart did not feel it fit in with this community. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Weber said the City was required to provide 200 low- and moderate -income housing units in or adjacent to the Coastal zone. 6/10/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Dr. Brown felt the concept should be better defined. He said the Commission was opposed to subsidized housing, but felt more information was necessary in order to comment on this proposal. Mr. Weber said he would try to gather some additional information for the Commission. Mr. Weber said the work session with Sedway/Cooke to discuss the Coastal Planning Study would be held Thursday, June 19, and would probably take at least two to three hours. Mr. Hughes said he would probably be out of town on that date. The Commission discussed the meeting time and felt 6:30 p.m. would be better than 7:30 p.m. Staff was to contact the Commissioners if the meeting could not be scheduled for 6:30. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown said he was supposed to meet with the other Chairpersons and the Mayor on the 21st of June. He also said there would be an ad hoc committee concerning Prima to consist of Councilpersons Bacharach and Dyda, the Chairpersons of the Park & Recreation Committee and the Traffic Committee, and himself. Mr. Hinchliffe said he received a phone call from Al Levitt requesting that he review Mr. Levitt's proposed project. He said he told Mr. Levitt he would discuss the matter with his colleagues. Commission discussion ensued as to whether it would be better for two mem- bers of the Commission to meet with Mr. Levitt or for all five members to meet with him in an informal review at a public meeting. It was determined that a meeting should be arranged with two members of the Commission. The Commission decided to choose a vice-chairman at the next regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 10:17 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Thursday, June 19, 1980 at 6:30 p.m. 6/10/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-