Loading...
PC MINS 198012090 M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting December 9, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown LATE ARRIVAL: Baer ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planners Gary Weber and Richard Thompson. CONSENT CALENDAR At the requbst of Mr. McTaggart, Dr. Brown removed the minutes of November 25, 1980 from the Consent Calendar, to be taken up again later in the meeting; On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving the minutes of the meetings of November 11, 1980, and November 13, 1980, as submitted. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 12431 Mr. Thompson said the request was for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 64 a lot split in an RS -1 (RPD) zoning dis- West of Palos Verdes Dr. West near trict. He reviewed the topographical Palos Verdes Estates boundary characteristics, geology, grading, access, and landscaping. He discussed the zoning and General Plan considerations and referred to the chart within the staff report. He discussed public access and said the City may want to require that the applicant dedicate the land seaward of the blufftop to the City. He said staff could not identify any conflicts between the proposal and the Coastal Study prepared by Sedway/Cooke. It was recommended that construction on the 4.5 acre lot be limited to 16 feet in height. It was recommended that public testimony be taken and that the Commission approve the tentative parcel map and conditional use permit subject to the draft resolutions and conditions. He proposed - changing condition -#8 of the parcel map resolution. He said it currently requires that the subdivider provide sewers to the proposed lot. Staff felt it would be possible for the subdivider to install a private sewer until the local main sewer is complete. He also proposed changing the word "lot" to "unit" in line 3 of that condition. Dr. Baer arrived at 7:45 p.m. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern about possible detrimental effects from the use of a septic tank. Mr. Thompson said that would be taken into consideration by the Health Department and the City Engineer. He said the application for development of the remainder of the site has already been submitted. Director Hightower said when that development is complete and the sewer is installed, this development would have to connect to the main sewer. She noted that there were -other private systems in the area and that so far there have been no problems. • Public hearing was opened. Bob Sims, Engineering Service, 127 Cottonwood Circle, Rolling Hills Estates, said the project site was over four acres in size which was a considerable amount of area for a leach field. He said if it does not meet the approval of the City Engineer and Health Department it could not be built. Re condition #30 he asked what protection there was for the property owner with respect to view protection, would the City build a fence, etc. Mr. McTaggart said his concern was what might happen to the bluffs if the leach field is placed too close to the bluff. Mr. Sims said the hook-up would be done at the time the structure is built. He pointed out that this was only a single family residence. Dick Huddleson, 240 South Madison Street, Torrance, architect, said he understood that in the design of the tract (adjacent land) there would be a major pump installation. He said they were trying to find a temporary solution until the remaining parcel is developed. He said they were willing to pay their fair share when the time comes. Re land dedication he said his client preferred keeping the property, but would not build on it. He was concerned about the height limit and Coastal setback. In response to a question by Mr. McTaggart re entering the sewer line, Mr. Sims said they would connect to the gravity line. Dr. Sharpsteen, 2960 Via Alvarado, reviewed the map to determine how close the project was to his property. Mr. Brockett, 30319 Palos Verdes Drive West, asked for clarification on lot sizes, etc. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Thompson said it was very clear where the coastal setback was, that its location was not negotiable. Re fencing the bluff, Mr. Thompson said the zoning would not permit it and the City had no intention of doing it. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 80-26, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 64 subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A". Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hincliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 80-27, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 12431 subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A" with the change to condition #8, as amended this evening. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None Dr. Brown said both of the above actions were appealable to the City Council within fifteen days. 12/9/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 41 REVISION Mr. Weber said the request was for a 5801 Crestridge revision to allow for the modification Applicant/Landowner: Episcopal Home of the approved use and floor plan of the second floor of the proposed community bAilding to allow for a 28 -bed skilled nursing facility in place of the approved chapel, manager's apart- ment, and guest rooms. He said staff reviewed the previous environmental assessment for the,pro3ect. He said staff used two basic criteria in evaluating the appropriateness of the skilled nursing facility: compatibility and need. He said the proposed elevation drawings show an increased ridge - line height of 1.34 feet over that which was approved. He said the architect indicated that the increase in height is necessary for additional mechanical and plumbing required for the nursing facility. Staff determined that the proposed height would not interfere or obstruct any view. He referred to the photos and plans which were on display. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the proposed revisions subject to the conditions attached to the draft resolution. He hoted that he had received a letter from Pat Russell this evening which was passed to the Commission for review. Dr. Baer said he was not on the Commission at the time of the original hearing and wondered if he could vote on this matter. Dr. Brown said this was a revision to the conditional use permit and that since Dr. Baer was in receipt of all information and would hear all of the public testimony, he may vote on the matter. Reverend George Cummings, executive directof of the Episcopal Home, said the staff report was very thorough and explained the full situation. He said initially they felt that when -nursing care became necessary residents Would be transferred to the Alhambra facility, where half of the beds were for skilled nursing. He said a lot of couples have expressed concern about separation if one of them gets sick. He said he did not anticipate as many couples applying, but expected primarily single women. He said 28 beds for skilled nursing was close to the normal percentage in most facilities of this kind. He said he did not have a timeline for receiving the required Certificate of Need. He said the change would require approxi- mately four additional employees per shift. He said the additional work for Medicare procedures would not be beyond the capabilities of the existing staff. Norman Neipris, 7021 Purpleridge, representing Ner Tamid, said they did not receive notification by mail and in checking with staff, they were listed on the mailing list at the post office box which they used four years ago. He said they were concerned with the idea of a skilled nursing facility next to them. He said there were a great many children and they were concerned that people from this facility would complain about the noise made by the children-. Jennette Mucha, president of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations, asked questions about licensing for the facility, sponsorship, and the fact that the chapel has not been advertised as -an amenity. She said the Council of Homeowners Associations at its meeting on December 3, determined that the proposed change should not be permitted. She said that position has been taken because of the high density of the project. `Slie said her questions were asked for clarification only. Reverend Cummings said the facility would be non-profit, that there would be an oratory which would be converted to a chapel on Sundays. He said although the Episcopal Home is separate,that the Bishop is the chairman of the board. Joe Ragbzino, 5725 Mistridge Drive, said two -other companies previously attempted to have skilled nursing facilities and the proposals have been rejected. He said the residents objected to the granting of this application. He referred to the project's environmental assessment which stated that should a higher level of care be require, people would be referred elsewhere, and that there would be no medical facility except for the clinic area. He said a permit was issued for a retirement home and now they want to change it to a nursing home. He was opposed to any change. 12/9/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- I ` John Arand, 5731 Mistridge Drive, said he had prepared a document to give to the Commission addressing his concerns. He said the news articles were most important. He said staff has justified compatibility by saying that while the facility is of an institutional nature it was also a residential use; but -the City Attorney's defense duringthe law suit he and other concerned residents filed was that the facility was a home for the aged, not a senior citizens' apartment. He felt the pro3ect was incompatible with the adjacent residential usage because of the density. He said earlier proposed nursing facilities failed because they could not prove need to the State of California. He asked that the request not be granted because it is not compatible. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart,and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to deny the requested amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 41. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the change requested by the applicant was reasonable, was consistent with the zoning, and did not represent a major change. He said there was not a significant change requested in the number of beds and he felt there was a need. Dr. Brown said he spoke to three individuals involved on a day-to-day basis with this type of facility and that the information received from all of them was the 28 beds would not be sufficient, that in time they would need more. He was concerned because he felt if they permit a skilled nursing facility it should be consistent with what other facilities have done with is to provide a larger nursing facility, but that it should be properly planned for. He said other information he received was that there would be a marked impact on traffic.- -etc. He said in the original approval there was a Variance on the amount of parking and he was concerned that there would not be sufficient parking for this request. Mr. Hughes concurred with Mr. Hinchliffe. He felt the project was not greatly different than what was already approved for the site. He felt there wasa need and that the impacts were very hard to find. He said he would be amenable to approving the project with the total number of beds closer to 200, perhaps 210. Mr. McTaggart found it hard to believe that the developer did not realize some kind of medical facility for this project would be needed when it was being planned. He felt there was a need for such a facility but was con- cerned about the number of visits which would be made to the facility and possible impacts to the community. He said he would be in favor of the - application if they could arrive at a reasonable number of beds. Vote on the above motion to deny the request was a follows: AYES: Baer, Brown NOES: Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart ABSENT: None Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolution P.C. No. 80-26, thereby approving the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 41. Mr. Hughes expressed concern about the ridgeline height and felt it ..should be no higher than what was originally approved. Mr. McTaggart said when the project was originally approved there was a lot of positive testimony. He felt there was a need for the facility and that he was in favor of the nursing facility but did not want to see an increase in the number of residents. He felt the 28 additional beds - would create additional traffic because of the nature of the individuals using them. However, he did not feel it would be significant if the total residency was limited to 200. Dr. Baer suggested changing condition #7 to read "Including" instead of "In addition to", thereby limiting the total number of resident beds to 200. 12/9/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- He then suggested that perhaps the conditions should also say "resident" in- stead of "resident beds." Mr. Hinchliffe felt the origin of the 200 -bed limitation should be taken into consideration. He said as he recalled the split was 60-40 for one - bedroom and two-bedroom units and very easily could have been a different split. Dr. Brown said they became -involved with the numbers because of the density. He said the original request was for 300 and that some of the Commissioners felt it should only be 150. Claude Senefeld, architect, Los Angeles, said a skilled nursing facility must be reviewed by the Office of State Architects. He said the building must be 50 percent stronger and that the Community Building would be the only one to meet those standards. He said the difference in.the structures was tremendous, and that the use could not be expanded because of that. Re the ridgeline, he said all of the buildings were three stories except for the community building which was two stories. He said they needed the additional one foot three inches at the ridge of the ciymmurii'ty building to accommodate the plumbing required for the skilled nursing -facility. He said with the original building a portion of the chapel went up over two feet higher than what is now proposed. Re the number of people, he noted that they :were reducing the number of overall units in the building to accommodate more two-bedroom units. Mr. McTaggart was concerned that an increase in the number of residents would increase the impact. He felt Mr. Hughes' proposal for 210 beds might be more reasonable. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Weber said staff saw no problem with the increase in height. He showed photographs to the Commission. Mr. McTaggart wondered if it was practical for the applicant to lower that structure to maintain the original ridgeline. Mr. Senefeld said the initial concern was with the relationship of the subject building to the other buildings. He did not feel that the community building was in the sightline. Mr. Weber said the ridgeline of the proposed structure was 1203 and the ridgeline of the adjacent building was 1209. He said in looking down it appeared they were approximately equal. Mr. Senefeld said they could introduce a ramp between buildings but that it would make it difficult for elderly people. Mr. Hinchliffe felt the request for the additional height was reasonable and he did not feel that the change was significant. Mr. Hughes agreed that in looking at the staff photographs it would not be impactive. Mr. Hinchliffe moved and Mr. Hughes seconded to amend the previous motion for approval of the request by changing condition #7 of Exhibit "A" to read as follows: "Including the twenty-eight (28)skilled nursing beds, no more two hundred ten (210) total licensed resident beds shall be permit- ted. A maximum..." Vote on the motion to adopt Resoluction P.C. No. 80-28, thereby approving the requested amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 41 subject to the conditions of Exhibit "A", as amended this evening, was as follows: RECESS AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart NOES: Brown ABSENT: None At 10:14 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:17 p.m. with the same members present. 12/9/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of November 25, 1980 were approved with the following amendments: page 4, paragraph 2, line 4, should read "...and to restrict anything from being painted white to avoid any glaring interruption..." COMMISSION REPORTS Mr. Hughes asked if the Chula Vista decision had any impact on Rancho Palos Verdes' Coastal Plan. Director Hightower said she had not yet discussed any possible effects of that court decision with the City Attorney as he was in court today for the Barton Hills suit. Dr. Brown distributed copies of a summary he prepared bf the Commission/ staff meeting which was held'the previous,.Wednesday. He said staff was to explore with the City Attorney the concept of a pre -meeting. Dr. Brown said on the 29th the Mayor and Chairpersons met with the City Manager for the first time. One of the things discussed was that the Mayor should report the meetings to the City Council. He said they discussed the annexation whi&h was still in court, and Del Cerro. He said interviews for the replacement for Park and Recreation Committee were to start after January 4. He said he mentioned the idea for a flow diagram to hand out to the public and that the City Manager said he would start working on it. He said they discussed the problem of projects of concern to the Commission being processed through the Traffic Committee. Other topics of discussion were the Barton Hills law suit, low and moderate -income housing, and mixed use housing, and said the City manager was to supply information. He said the next meeting would be on January 10. Mr. McTaggart said mention was made that a letter was received by the Mayor to the effect that the Planning Commission was paid off in a particular Height Variation. He said if such a letter existed he would like a copy. He suggested that staff look into it as he"felt that was a serious accusation. There was Commission ('t,;pcus s ion, about the proposed recreational -vehicle ordinance. Dr. Brown asked staff to clarify whether the item was sent by the Council- to the Commission or not. Director Hightower reminded the Commission of the City Council work session Thursday night on the Sedway/Cooke Coastal Study. Mr. Hughes asked about the antenna pro3 ect which had been continued by the Commission. He said he discussed it at the last meeting and suggested that staff put it back on the agenda. In response to a question by Mr. McTaggart, Dr. Brown discussed the median cut on Hawthorne and Crest. He said there would be no left turn from Crest Road, only egress. Director Hightower noted also that'they must improve Crest Road up to the Monaco tract. ADJOURNMENT At 10:40 p.m. and carried, December 23, it was moved, seconded, to adjourn to Tuesday, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. 12/9/80 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-