Loading...
PC MINS 19800909pq Y0 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting September 9, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown ABSENT: None Also present was Gary Weber, Acting Director of Planning. CONSENT CALENDAR On request of Mr. Hinchliffe, item B., approval of the minutes of August 26, 1980, was removed by Dr. Brown from the Consent Calendar for discussion and action later. A minor change was made to the minutes of August 12, 1980 as follows: page 7, first paragraph under Commission Reports, line 4, should read " ... Dyda, Parks & Recreation Committee Chairman Robert Gibson, -and himself." On motion of Dr. Baer, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Consent Calendar was unanimously accepted, thereby approving the following items: minutes of August 12, 1980 as amended above, time extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 7559, time extension -for Tentative Parcel Map No. 8744, and Grading Application No. 472. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously car- ried, the ar- ried,the minutes of the meeting of August 26, 1980 were approved with the following amendments: page 1, paragraph 6, line 3, should read "...and within the required..."; page 3, paragraph 2, add at the end of the sen- tence "...and those persons that presented photographs at the meeting."; page 3, paragraph 6, add as last sentence "Dr. Brown felt that the opera- tive word was significant re cumulative impact and that in this case the effect was not s ...s cant."; and access to the 22...to page 5, paragraph 3, line 9, should read CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 58 Mr. Weber said at the previous meeting (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 39673) the Commission reviewed this project Southwest of Beachview & Coastsite and requested further information and Landowner/Applicant: Tumanjan and revisions. He said regarding treating Tumanjan Investments this project and the project proposed on the adjacent parcel (Tentative Tract Map No. 39672) as one, it was the City Attorney's opinion that the Map Act allows for it but only with the cooperation of the developer. On the matter of density transfer, it was the City Attorney's opinion that while the City has done a density transfer in the past within one parcel, there was no mechanism to transfer density from separate projects and the transfer would depend on the coopera- tion of the developer. He said the City Attorney said in order to relocate the road the two projects would have to be treated as one, which would re- quire the cooperation of the developer and, further, it would be necessary for the City to vacate the roadway. He said included in the agenda packets was a revised site plan. He said additional revisions include pushing the tennis court back well into the interior of the project in response to Commission concerns previously expressed and also a shortening of "A" Street. He said'asshown on the revised plans the lot lines were realigned to con- form more to the footprint of the project. He said another major change was the elimination of one unit. He said he felt there was a slight in- consistency in having two single family dwelling units within the concept but that it was not a significant problem. He said the one change which was not made was the change to the roads from private to public. He said based on the Coastal Plan and past policy, staff was recommending public streets. He pointed out that if the streets are public, the Public Works Department will have problems with the textured surface proposed. Staff recommended that the Commission review the revisions and determine whether the concept is acceptable before proceeding with the view analysis, which is a lengthy process. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Weber said the project was designed to look like a single family development and based on that and relatively low density he felt the project was not incompatible with the Coastal Plan. Mr. Hughes was concerned about the project being handled separately and asked if staff felt there was some merit in developing the projects for the two areas simultaneously. Mr. Weber felt there was merit such as for maximizing public access to the bluffs. He said the proposed projects provide access but do not maximize it. He pointed out that both projects being reviewed the same night offered the Commission the opportunity to consider the impacts of one on the other. In response to further questions by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Weber said in doing the view analysis over the lower site he will first try to establish where the viewing stations would be on the upper site. He said the bluff site dropped down and if structures were kept at the 16 -foot maximum height there was a potential for preserving a good portion of the view. He said he could not be sure without doing a view analysis. Re a question by Dr. Baer re access through the tract, Mr. Weber said theoretically if the streets were private, people would not have the right to use them unless there was a trail system for pedestrian access. He pointed out that even with public streets there would be no reason for anyone to enter the tract because it was not a through street: Dr. Brown noted that this was a continued public hearing. Ross Bolton, South Bay Engineering, said the revisions had already been discussed by Mr. Weber, i.e. shortening "A" Street, relocating the tennis court, etc. He said they changed the lot lines to allow for entrance ways. He said they were proposing textured concrete on the cul-de-sacs. He said this type of concrete was recently approved in Rolling Hills Estates as part of the Deep Valley Drive project and that it cleared the Road Depart- ment. He said they were still considering -different alternatives, but -at this time they were looking at a cobblestone appearance. He said turf - block was being proposed as part of the driveways. Mr. Hinchliffe expressed concern about geologic aspects and referred to test pit #12, which was discussed in the appendix to the Environmental Impact Report concerning bentonite. Mr. Bolton said he was not a geologist and, therefore, could not respond to geologic questions. Keith Palmer, Neil Stanton Palmer Architects, Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, said the proposed private streets comply with the intent of the Coastal Plan, as it requires public roads unless it can be demonstrated that the private road would not impact public access to the shoreline. He said this project would not impact access. He said they have a proposed plan for pedestrian footpaths. He said they are not proposing to wall the entire development, and he discussed maintenance. He said the proposed bikeway was to comply with the Coastal Plan and would not, be marked but would have directional signs. He said in designing the project they made studies of existing and future views and have done several things to 9/9/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- eliminate impacts on those views. He presented photographs taken from the Coastsite Drive side. He said the buildings were set back 80 feet from Coastsite Drive, which conforms to the CC&Rs to preserve views from the Bay Club. He said the property sloped down and the bluff site dropped an additional 25 feet from Seacove to the bluff edge for a total 85 -foot vertical drop. He said the units step with the terrain and that the lower units would be substantially below the upper units. He said the units have also been designed on the site to provide a distance between and through the units and then over the units below. He said the hip roofs would help accentuate views. He showed conceptual drawings of the wall along Coast - site which would be wrought iron and concrete block pilasters, six-foot maximum, dropping with the site, and parallel with the ocean view. He said the developers intended to meet one -acre lot standards on the bluff parcel with deed restrictions addressing height limits, setbacks, view corridors, and conditions on fencing and landscaping. He said the owner was also willing to adjust the bluff site project by relocating the vista park to assist with view corridors. He said the reason for the gated private roads is that the developer would like to limit vehicular traffic but not pedestrian access. Mr. McTaggart felt that limiting pedestrian or vehicular access in the coastal area did not really meet the Coastal Plan. He was opposed to private roads. Dr. Baer was concerned with a cluttered appearance with buildings at dif- ferent angles and open space cut up between them. Mr. Palmer felt there was quite a bit of open space between the units and did not feel there was any problem with the way the units were arranged on the site. He felt there was adequate consistency to hold the pro]ect to- gether. He felt the design of the pro]ect, combining single family looking units with a condominium type open space environment, would be a benefit. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Palmer said the desire for private roads was for the marketability of the units due to the security being offered to the buyers. He said the gate would discourage thieves, etc. Peter Delgado, Tumanjan and Tumanjan Investments, Inc., director of the project, said even though the project will not really be completely en- closed by the wall, it would have the appearance of security. He said they intended to proceed with the bluff parcel first. He said one-story single-family homes were proposed, ranging in size from 2400 - 3200 square feet, with three -car garages, which studies indicated were very popular in the area. In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Mr. Delgado said his reason for not wanting to combine the projects was financial. He said this was the last subdivision that would allow for bluff lots and he felt a density transfer would be trading grapes for apples. Jack Anstine, 32700 Coastsite, resident of the Bay Club, said they had five buildings along Coastsite Drive and asked what considerations would be made to preserve their views. He asked if lights were proposed for the tennis court. Mr. Delgado responded that they were not proposing tennis court lighting. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hughes suggested moving on to the next item and hearing the testimony and then considering both projects at the same time. Mr. Weber said as long as the public hearings were held separately, there was no problem with the Commission discussing both projects at the same time. 9/9/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 39672 Mr. Weber said the request was to South of Seacove Drive subdivide a 14.6 acre site into Landowner/Applicant: Tumanjan and eleven single family lots and two non- Tumanjan Investments residential lots. He discussed the zoning and overlay control districts and said the site was currently being farmed. He discussed the proposed density and said an evaluation of the map showed overall compliance with the designated land use, and associated policies and goals of the Coastal Plan and General Plan. He referred to the chart in the staff report and said the primary conflict was the lot size, as the map showed several lots under the required one acre. He said the map has since been modified to reduce the residential lots by one and to relocate the vista park. He said the revision allows for each residen- tial lot to be a minimum of one acre which resolves the major conflict. He reviewed the proposed vehicular access. He said the vista park was re- located from the central portion of the site to the eastern edge to allow for a view corridor from the Bay Club and public right-of-way. He said staff has no strong objections to the park in any location. He said there was a conflict with the Coastal Plan re the location of the trail. He said the developer was proposing a different alignment, but he felt the Coastal Commission would probably be receptive to it because of the small but centrally located public park. It was staff's opinion that realignment of the bikeway was not inconsistent with the park and access being provided to the bluff. He said not mentioned in the staff report was the fact that the geologic setback line referred to on the map did not conform to the setback line identified in the Coastal Plan and referred to in the Develop- ment Code. He said this would present a major problem with development of lot #1, as a variance would be required in order to build a structure. He said aside from that problem, he did not have any significant problems with the design of the project as submitted with the ten residential lots. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Weber said he did not know how the City Council would react to a dedication of the bluff. He said there were advantages and disadvantages either way. Mr. Hughes said if lot B was made slightly larger, it would be able to accommodate a trail system. Mr. Weber said if they enlarged lot B all of the other lots would be de- creased to under one acre. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, review the project and give direction to staff and the applicant. In response to Commission questions concerning the City having control over the bluff, Mr. Weber said the benefit would be in terms of controlling what is done on it. He said an easement was a possibility but created practical problems, such as liability. He said the applicant was proposing the park in lieu of paying the required parkland dedication fee. He felt there were a number of benefits to having the park. He said the bikeway was proposed to be located within the right-of-way. He said there were practical prob- lems with having the bikeway along the bluff in this tract, as the resi- dential lots would be very close to the bluff. With regard to lot sizes, he said if an easement is granted, the land still counted as part of the lot; but if there is a dedication of land involved, it reduces the size of the lots. RECESS At 9:19 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m. with the same members present. Public hearing was opened. Ross Bolton, South Bay Engineering, said the setback line shown on the map was prepared by a consultant and was based on field studies and geologic borings. He said the creation of lot B was because it seemed a reasonable 9/9/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- place to stop the lot lines. He said the utility easements mentioned were proposed, not existing. Re the bikeway he said there would be signs but no lines delineating the path. He said if the vista park was located anywhere else it would not be as large, that as proposed it was 1.4 acres. Peter Delgado, Tumanjan and Tumanjan Investments, Inc., reviewed the history of this project proposal. He said the -vista park creates an open area and would be passive in use. He said the relocation of the park creates a view corridor for everyone. He said they had two soils reports done on the par- cel. He said he would prefer the eleven lots with the vista park in the center, but did not want to go through the -conditional use permit and vari- ance procedure because time was important. He did not feel that the bluff was a good location for -the bike path for a number of reasons, one of them being that there would be no access for emergency vehicles. He said they would do whatever the City was comfortable with as far as the bike trail was concerned, but felt that the vista park was a viable alternative. He said if the City desired the bike path along the bluff, they would probably prefer to have the eleventh residential lot instead of the park. Jack Anstine, Bay Club, said he was in favor of the proposed relocation of the park and felt it would enhance the views from the Bay Club. He said the park in that location would also provide ocean access, as there was a trail going down to the ocean from that point which was not possible from anywhere else because it was so steep. He said people have always used it to go fishing, etc. Re having the bike path along the bluff, he said that area has been used extensively by people who walk along there, and he felt even if it is not a bike path, it should be kept open for pedestrians. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Weber said the Planning Department felt that having the bike trail on the right-of-way was a viable alterna- tive. He said the primary bike path would be along Palos Verdes Drive and the intent was to have directional signs to the vista park. He said the Parks & Recreation Department was very receptive to the park with passive use and landscaping. Re ocean access he said this was not a recognized trail, that it would be easy to restrict access to the water since it was considered a preservation area. Mr. Hughes was concerned that because of the threat of potential liability the City would forego development of a park site on one of the very few remaining pieces of land overlooking San Pedro harbor and the kelp beds. He felt the City should be looking at every alternative. He did not feel they had even begun to explore all of the options. He said it looked like the park was in one of the better locations as it provides a park site to the bluff line. He said he would like to see an easement taken along the bluff for pedestrian access. He was disturbed by the fact that there were more options available than were presented to the Commission. He felt it was an ideal place for a bluff trail system. He said there was no other coastal property like this site until you get down to Subregion 7. Mr. McTaggart agreed that perhaps a bluff easement for pedestrians made sense, but he did not feel it was a good place for bikes. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the combination of a bike path along Seaview and vista park met the criteria of the Coastal Plan. He said he understood Mr. Hughes' concerns but said it sounded like an either-or situation, either have the bike path and trail system and no vista park, or the other way around. He said the City cannot require the applicant to put in a park. He was concerned with the misinterpretation of where the Coastal Plan hazard line is. He felt the Commission needed input from Parks & Recrea- tion as to how important they viewed the park. He agreed with the proposed relocation of the park. Dr. Baer was concerned with the issues mentioned by Mr. Hughes and said they were making conjectures about how the City Council would feel about the 9/9/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- bluff dedication. He said they have received testimony that people have been using the bluff area for years. Mr. McTaggart agreed there may be a prescriptive easement on the trail if people have been using it for a long time. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Delgado said short of combining the sites, they were willing to work with the City. He said the vista park was a negotiable item and was probably worth about $300,000. He said having a bluff easement along the back of the homes would decrease the value of those homes. Mr. McTaggart said he did not feel the Commission had the right to give up public access which has been used for years. Mr. Hinchliffe felt it was important to determine the policy of the City with regard to lot B because it could make a difference with the lot lines. He felt the issue of the bluff trail or bikeway must be resolved ---if it must be on land owned by the City, who would build it, if there is liability with an easement, etc. He felt if there is a trail it should be on City - owned property rather than an easement. He said that would reduce the size of the lots and require a different procedure for dealing with the same number of lots. Mr. Hughes said he would be interested in seeing some kind of view analysis relating to this subdivision and the project next door. Joe Barnett, 2592 Ridgepoint, Palos Verdes Estates, said the City of Palos Verdes Estates owns all of the bluff faces including much bluff top. He said it is easier to deal with cliff rescues if there is public access. He felt the vista park was a much better solution than an easement behind private property. He urged the Commission to think carefully before eliminating the vista park. It was the consensus of the Commission that they needed more information. Mr. McTaggart requested feedback from the City Council about lot B and the concept of the City taking over the bluff area. Mr. Weber said he would address the Council on that issue. He felt, however, that the Council would not want the bluff in the proposed configuration. He said he would recommend extending the lot lines and perhaps taking an easement. He said based on previous discussions with the City Attorney, there would be difficulties in trying to gain a prescriptive easement. Dr. Brown said the location of the geologic hazard line was also a problem. Mr. Weber said where that line is is very clear and that a change in the plan would have to be made, as lot #1 is unbuildable without a variance. Mr. Hinchliffe said it was difficult right now to sort out what was in the best interest of the City without more information. Mr. Weber felt the vista park offered a higher public benefit than the trail ever would. He requested to know whether the concept of the upper site was viable or whether the Commission preferred something entirely different. Dr. Brown said the issues were the recreation facilities, lot lines, public versus private roads, and the single units with all the rest duplexes. He said a concern in the past had been that the lot lines were very irregular and difficult to deal with. Mr. Weber said when he wrote the staff report he was not aware that the little jogs in the lot lines were for entry courts. He said he had no real problem with the lot lines as revised. 9/9/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- It was the consensus of the Commission that they were not concerned with the proposed lot lines. Re the recreational facilities, Mr. Hughes was concerned about the closeness of the pool to some of the units. He also wondered about solar heating as it did not appear there would be room for any equipment. He felt it would be a better configuration to have the pool near the tennis court and recrea- tion building. Mr. Delgado said they would install solar panels if the Commission desired. He said they could be on roof tops or on monuments on the ground. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Weber said if the streets were public they would require additional right-of-way. He did not feel this would involve relocating structures and said the 32 -foot width pro- posed would be adequate. He said the only problem would be with the tex- tured cul-de-sacs and intersections. He said he checked with Public Works on an informal basis and they were not in favor of textured concrete. The Commission was concerned that there would be view impairment. Mr. Weber said right now staff was looking -for some indi6ation that if there were no problems with the view analysis, etc., this design concept would be acceptable. He said the view analysis was a lengthy process and he did not wish to go through it if the Commission does not like the design concept to begin with. Dr. Brown said he was comfortable enough with the concept to let staff go ahead and do the fine tuning and address all the other issues. The rest of the Commission concurred that staff should proceed with the view analysis. The matter was continued to the next meeting. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber said staff had been communi- cating with the Atkinson's (Conditional Use Permit No. 61) regarding the possi- bility of a test of tennis court lighting and that the latest indication was that they were unwilling to try an experiment without some guarantees because of the costs involved. They, therefore, requested some sort of approval. Pursuant to staff's recommendation, the Commission requested that the Atkinson's be advised that no such decision would be granted and that they should commit to the recommended test or come back for a decision without a test. Mr. Weber said that the Sedway-Cooke Study had been submitted and that copies would be delivered in the near future. COMMISSION REPORTS Chairman Brown informed the Commission of the status of the Civic Center architectural selection process and confirmed that the Commission would be meeting with the Council on the fifth Tuesday of this month (September 30, 1980) and that they should be thinking of issues to discuss. ADJOURNMENT At 12:19 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, September 23, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 9/9/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-