Loading...
PC MINS 19810113Q55) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting January 13, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Associate Planners Gary Weber and Richard Thompson and Code Inspector Alice Bergquist Angus. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Baer, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby approving the minutes of the meeting of December 23, 1980. MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT 87 APPEAL 6554 Madeline Cove Landowner/Applicant: T. Watabe antenna. She said an update was to that the subcommittee would report Ms. Angus said at the meeting of November 13 this item was continued and a subcommittee of Mr. Hughes and Mr. McTaggart was formed to investi- gate alternatives to the requested be presented at tonight's meeting and on the alternatives. Edward Tabash, 250 East 1st Street, Suite 812, Los Angeles, asked if he could speak after the project opponents made their presentation and also requested removal of the five-minute ceiling for his presentation. Dr. Brown said there were a number of items on the agenda this evening and removal of the five-minute ceiling for one speaker would present a problem. He suggested that Mr. Tabash make his comments at this time as succinctly as possible. Mr. Tabash said his arguments were the same as before and concerned the language situation. He said that the applicant was prepared to modify the antenna in any way that would still allow Channel 18 to be received. He said he had done some research on constitutional law and he believed that the recent Supreme Court cases on freedom of speech supported his client's position, that the request was justified because of the relatively modest obstruction. He asked the Commission to bear in mind the impact that First Amendment cases have on this issue. Klaus Biber, 6544 Abbottswood Drive, said the antenna was directly in his field of view and was significantly above the horizon. He said the chief reason given at the last meeting for wanting this antenna was for the news broadcasts shown on Channel 18, which offered business-related information. He said he reviewed several TV guides over the past three months and found that the average number of Japanese newscasts shown on Channel 18 was the same as on Channel 22, which was accessible without the antenna. He said he was mislead into believing there were daily newscasts offered on Channel 18. He said he was on Cable TV. Randy Finefrock, 6553 Madeline Cove, said he was on the cable system but would love to save money by putting up his own antenna and getting all of the stations. He said the neighborhood was strongly opposed to the antenna and noted that this issue had been going back and forth with the City for several months. He hoped the issue would be resolved tonight. 0 • Bill Phillips, 6536 Abbottswood, said the neighbors did not want to inter- fere with the applicant's rights but felt they had rights also. He said there was an ordinance prohibiting antennas and was concerned that approval of this antenna would pave the way for anyone with a particular need to also put up an antenna, that a precedent would be set. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the ordinance permits antennas but makes provi- sions to control them through the permit procedure, that antennas are not prohibited. Deirdre Bueche, 6601 E1 Rodeo Road, read letters from neighbors who were opposed to the project but were unable to attend tonight's meeting. The first letter was from Mr. & Mrs. Peter Roth and Mr. and Mrs. Porter and con- cerned the neighborhood being unmarred by TV antennas and the violation of the CC&Rs. They wanted the antenna removed and felt that permitting one to change the rules would allow others to follow. The second letter was from the Shlatters and the Randalls and stated that they had addressed this matter previously but were'not notified of tonight's meeting. They noted the violation of the CC&Rs and pointed out that the neighbors had been op- posed to this antenna from the time it was erected. They felt the antenna was unacceptable in any size or shape. Dr. Brown said the Commission made it clear at the last meeting that there would be no further notification. He said he particularly made note to the audience that they should stay in touch with the City. He also pointed out that the City was a non-party to the CC&Rs and was, therefore, unable to enforce them. Dana Harvey, 6533 Madeline Cove, agreed with the previous speakers. She said there were other people in the neighborhood that speak other languages fluently, but none of them have put up an antenna. She said she could not look out of her windows without seeing the antenna. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if she would see the antenna if it was lowered. Ms. Harvey said the antenna would be objectionable at any height. She said there was no way to put up an antenna and not have it obstruct views. She felt with one exception there would be others requested. Mary Leclercq, 6616 Madeline Cove, said the total number of hours per week for Japanese programs on Channel 18 was very small. She said the antenna was not a modest intrusion and was erected without permits. She wondered whether or not the applicant could speak or understand English, as the sup- porting arguments involve a language problem. Dr. Brown said the Commission could not consider the fluency of the appli- cant in making its decision on this pro3ect. He said they must deal with the findings in the ordinance, that considerations must be the same for everyone. Mr. Hughes said there foreign language broadcasts on Channel 22 and 3 as secondary programming. He said the primary programming was for local things and that he understood it was TM's desire to keep the channel for local programming. He said the cable company must serve stations in the order that they are presented. He said Channel 52 was first and was given a time slot and that Channel 18 was a relatively new station. He could not comment on the programming of Channel 18 as he had never seen it. He said Cable TV could not carry any more stations and that Channel 18 could not be put on the cable at this time. He said Mr. McTaggart and he looked at al- ternatives. He noted that there was a great deal of concern expressed at the previous meeting about the guy wires on this antenna, which he agreed were excessive. He said one of the alternatives available offered no guy wires and was a free-standing tower that could be raised and lowered. He said the City could require that the antenna be cranked down when not in use. He noted that there were other antennas in the neighborhood. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if it was necessary for the height of the antenna to be at its current level. 1/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Hughes said basically, television signals were line of sight, which means the antenna must be high enough to look over the hill to see Mt. Wilson. He was surprised that the applicant was getting enough signal to receive the station. Mr. Hinchliffe said as he understood the ordinance, the antenna would be permitted at 30 feet with no consideration given to view obstruction. Dr. Baer asked if it was possible to limit the use of the antenna to only when the Japanese programs were on, and that it be cranked down when not in use. In response to questions of Dr. Baer, Mr. Weber said when a minor exception permit is granted it can be reasonably conditioned to make it acceptable. Mr. McTaggart did not feel the Commission could rule on whether the amount of programming would make getting the station worthwhile. He also did not feel the Commission should set the hours, as what was shown was up to the programming of the station itself. He was concerned about the number of guy wires on the existing antenna. He said at dusk he could still see the guy wires but not the array. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, requiring that the applicant reduce the height of the existing antenna to 30 feet, as measured per the ordinance, upon submittal of a site plan 4= the City. If that is not feasible, the applicant may erect a free-standing tubular tower (no guy wires) not to exceed a 4-'1/2 inch base diameter, to be sited with the aid of the Planning staff to minimize view obstruction. The tower must be erected to the minimum height required to receive acceptable reception of Channel 18 and in no event may the tower exceed the height of the exist- ing antenna. Vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: Baer ABSENT: None Dr. Brown advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. RECESS At 8:26 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 8:37 p.m. with the same members present. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 19 Mr. Weber said the original draft en - Southwest corner Crest & Crenshaw vironmental impact report (EIR) was Landowner/Applicant: Rutter submitted on March 10, 1980 and that, Development Corp. subsequently, the project was revised and the draft EIR was resubmitted on November 7. He said following its receipt, a notice of completion was sent to all appropriate review agencies and organizations, and that all resulting comments were attached to the staff report. He said the EIR was determined necessary because of the poten- tial for significant environmental impact should the project be implemented. He said it was further determined that the document should be prepared as a focused EIR, including the issues of geology, drainage, biotic resources, archaeological/historical resources, views and visual character, traffic generation and circulation. He explained that if a significant impact is shown, -mitigation measures are required. He said a detailed geology report was prepared which indicated the area was suitable for development and was stable from a geology standpoint. Re hydrology, he said the site lies in the Altamira Canyon watershed and that analysis indicated a slight increase in run-off which had the potential of impacting an already adverse condition. He said mitigation measures were included in the document, per a Los Angeles 1/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- County Flood Control District study. He said biotic information was taken from other EIRs in the vicinity and that there would be limited impact on this site because it was a disturbed area. Re archaeological/historical resources, there was a potential for a significant impact and, therefore, a mitigation measure was assigned which required that further testing be done on the site. He said this was done and, although he had not read the complete report, the conclusions indicated that the artifacts had been re- moved already. Re visual character it was determined that there were signi- ficant public views related to this site and that there would be some impact if the project is implemented as proposed, but that the impact would not be significant since the views with the potential of being obstructed were marginal and the opportunity was there to open new views through grading. He explained that the State law made it very clear that views from private property could not be considered at the environmental stage but would be during the project review stage. He said a traffic engineer prepared an analysis which indicated little impact on traffic generation and circulation. He said this impact was not significant. He explained that the function of an EIR was to address environmental impacts and would be used as a tool by the Planning Commission and City Council in reviewing the project. He said it was very important that the document be both adequate and accurate. He said after close review of the document staff felt it was adequate and accurate and recommended that the Commission finalize the EIR since it con- formed to City and State EIR guidelines. He noted that the staff report recommended a procedural change to page 38 of the document and said an addi- tional item not noted in the staff report was related to trails. He said the General Plan identifies a number of trails: walkways to align with Crest and Crenshaw along the full frontage of the project, a portion of a trail running along the bluff area along the canyon. A bikeway and eques- trian trail was also shown. He said the omission of these trails was an oversight in preparing the EIR, and he recommended that prior to the finalization proper wording be added. He said it was not an environmental issue but should be in the document as part of the project description. Mr. McTaggart found it difficult to believe there would be 30 people coming in and 70'people going out in the morning peak hour. He felt those figures indicated not too many people would be working and that with 94 units the traffic count represented an understatement. Mr. Weber said those numbers were only for that peak hour. He said traffic would be leaving prior to that hour and following that hour. He said those figures were just looking at the worst case time. He said the City had some traffic counts done in isolated areas with good controls and the numbers found for low density residential at peak hour were about 3/4 of a trip generated for each dwelling unit in an outbound direction. He said technically the numbers in this EIR were correct. Mr. Hughes said the signalization of Crest and Crenshaw was discussed for a couple of previous developments. He asked if there was a plan for sig- nalization of that intersection. Mr. Weber said as part of the approval of subdivisions in the area having the potential of impacting the intersection, the City was collecting a fee from the applicants in the form of a cash deposit for future signalization. Public hearing was opened. Don Owen, Cayman Development Company, said the consultants that helped pre- pare the EIR were present and that he was available to answer any questions. Greg Broughton, 141 Hart Avenue, Santa Monica, Planning Consultants Research, responded to questions by the Commission. He said the document was prepared focusing on specific issues and that the subject of trails was not one of the issues, that its omission from the project description was an oversight. He said there was a substantial amount of work done for the traffic investi- gation, that they applied the analysis for the Hahn shopping center and still determined that it would not warrant signalization of Crest. He said from a regional standpoint, 12 trips per day was considered a high generation 1/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- rate for a residential project of this type, that for this project it came out to 1100 trips per dayA. He said the methodologies used assumed signali- zation, that there were none based on the use of stop signs. Dr. Brown said the figure he heard from the Traffic Committee was a factor of 13 to 15 trips per day. Mr. Broughton said the traffic engineer that prepared the report was out of town but that it was his recollection that the City encouraged the use of 12 trips over a 24-hour period. In response to questions by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Broughton said there were clearly some views over the site and that to change the grade and add structures would change the visual character. He said one way to mitigate view obstruction would be to minimize ridge heights. He said statements made in the EIR referred to the quality of view, not the number of homes affected. Mr. Hughes said the mitigation measures mentioned in the document did not include alternate grading concepts to mitigate public view obstruction from Crest Road. He also said the run-off figures in the correspondence from Lanco Engineering appeared to be different than the calculations contained in Table 1, page 22 of the document. He was concerned that the drainage impact to Altamira Canyon be accurately stated and felt that the supporting data should agree with the document. He said the difference was significant. Mr. McTaggart said the mitigation was to provide a portion of money needed to develop improvements for the flood control of the lower area but that there was no time table stated. Mr. Owen said they have proposed to undertake the work if it was the desire on the part of the Portuguese Bend area, that there have been discussions on the subject. He concurred that money sitting in the City treasury did not solve the problem. Dr. Brown said it was his understanding that an agreement was in the process of being formulated. He agreed that the impact of this project alone was small. Mr. Hughes said they talked about pre -site conditions and post -project condi- tions, but the project would be in an intermediate stage for a 2-3 year period. He felt a time table was necessary. Mr. Owen noted that the off-site improvements would be taken in one step, not phased, and would be at the front of the project. John Tretheway, 1 Cinnamon Lane, said Mr. Owen has been working very hard with the Portuguese Bend Community Association and the Abalone Cove Protec- tion Association, and began addressing the problems very early in the pro- ceedings. He said the applicant was prepared to meet the responsibility once it has been determined. Dr. Brown said the document should delineate not only the measures to be taken, but the timing. Dave Ruth, 40 Cinnamon Lane, representing the Portuguese Bend Community Association, felt it was worthwhile considering the possibility of trans- ferring the funds which had already been contributed to the City to the newly formed Landslide Abatement District. Dr. Brown asked if they looked at the relationship between this project and the rest of the developable land that exists between Crest and Portuguese Bend. Mr. Ruth said they have considered that and were concerned, but felt they should take things one step at a time. He felt if this was handled proper- ly by adding more wells or by channelizing Altamira Canyon with the gunite method, it would be a step in the right direction. He said this was a test case for an adequate solution to the drainage problem. 1/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- I Dr. Brown said the Traffic Committee recommended to the City Council the vacation of Whitley Collins provided that there be emergency access only onto Crest. He wondered if that would change the analysis which was based on regular access at that location. II(( Mr. Broughton said having the access only on Crenshaw would have an inci- dental effect on the intersection. He said they had, in fact, evaluated that possibility. Mr. Hughes was concerned about the corner parcel becoming an island, with its only access right near the intersection. He felt this development was impacting the access to that parcel and that there should be mitigation measures listed in the document which might include an easement for access. He felt the issue should be addressed. Mr. Broughton said this development certainly constrains that site but did not feel that this applicant was responsible for those conditions. Dr. Brown felt it was an environmental concern. He said the parcel is developable and is immediately adjacent to this site. Mr. Weber felt it was not an environmental issue and should be discussed as part of the tract map. He estimated the parcel to be about one-half acre, which would accommodate one house. He said technically there was little control over where the access would be with the development of a single family home. While he did not see it as an environmental issue, he said the concern will become part of the final EIR because the minutes will be included as part of the document. Dr. Baer said trees were discussed under project impact on page 27 and that one sort of vegetation will be replaced with another. He also felt grading should be restricted or controlled to minimize any impact to the slopes below. He was concerned with the preservation of the Coastal Sage Scrub. Mr. Broughton said re -landscaping would certainly occur, that it was men- tioned as a type of mitigation measure. He said there would be some advan- tages with the introduction of some species. with regard to the Coastal Sage Scrub, he said one of the things that would be a condition of any development is that the grading not be allowed to disturb the non -developable area. He said three other project applications were considered over the last 2-3 years and that the last concept was for attached units. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. The Commission agreed to staff's recommended changes re trails and Whitley Collins. Dr. Brown said the Commission could ask for more data on the questions raised tonight or finalize the document with the minutes as part of the document. Mr. Hughes felt they needed data that substantiates the run-off rates. Dr. Brown said the other items re traffic, view, biotic resources, and the corner parcel. Mr. Hughes said in his opinion those other items could be appropriately dealt with in the minutes. Dr. Baer suggested that the Commission finalize the document subject to the run-off matter being resolved. Mr. Hinchliffe felt it was a matter that staff could resolve. Mr. Weber said the error was minor and would not result in a change in the overall project impact. He said the consultant said 1.4 was the accurate 1/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- number. He said the 2.0 was in the technical background data and was part of the file but not part of the EIR. He said he just read a letter from Lanco to the EIR consultant which cleared up the error in the background information. He felt the addendum should include the memo. Mr. McTaggart proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to finalize Environ- mental Impact Report No. 19 subject to the staff suggested changes, the acceptance of the run-off data by staff, and the minutes. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38848 Mr. Weber said the request was for a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 69 residential development on a 57.5 acre Southwest corner Crest & Crenshaw site which would allow for 94 detached Applicant/Landowner: Rutter single family dwelling units, common Development Corp. open space, common recreation facili- ties, required infrastructure facilities, private streets, and other improvements as required by Code. He said in general the proposed project fit well into the adjoining environment. He described the surrounding properties and said a portion of the site had been previously graded. He said Whitley Collins had been vacated by the City Council. He said an evaluation of the tenta- tive map and design concepts indicate overall compliance with the designated land use, policies, and goals of the General Plan, but that there was an inconsistency with trails which would have to be resolved. He said there were no major areas of conflict with the Development Code or zoning map. He said the amount of common open space was an issue but that it was one of the few conditions which the Commission had the ability to waive. He said there were some inconsistencies with the grading, and he discussed the maxi- mum depths of cut and fill.. He felt one of the few natural water courses should not be filled as proposed. Re impact to the Coastal Sage Scrub, he said the grading plan should be redesigned to eliminate the impacted -area or conditions should be imposed re how grading may occur there. He said the Public Works Department had reviewed the proposed street system and had no major problems but one of their recommendations was -that the proposed street width be 36 feet instead of 34 feet, as proposed. Staff was recom- mending public streets rather than privately owned. Re hydrology, he said the City would have to come up with a time table. He felt staff would have a strong recommendation on that by the time this project was ready for a decision. He said at this point a detailed view analysis has not been pre- pared. Staff felt that the EIR analysis was adequate and accurate, but that further evaluation of the public view impacts would be undertaken with a detailed view analysis. He said preliminary indications were that some private views would be obstructed by future homes but that many do not have a view as defined by the Code. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing and that concept be discussed. In general, staff felt that the design concept has merit and could be approved substantially as is. He said, however, the issues discussed previously and other minor conflicts would require revision and/or elimination. It was recommended that the applicant be directed to revise the plans pursuant to those concerns and that the matter be continued. Dr. Brown said there was a drawing of the bikeway on the plans and asked if it was designed to be behind the right-of-way. Mr. Weber said in portions it was out of the right-of-way. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Zamfirescu, 1631 Stonewood Court, operator of the nursery school, asked questions about the right-of-way improvements. Mr. Weber said all of the improvements in question were proposed to be within the public right-of-way and he pointed out that this was a proposal and had not been approved. 1/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- Mr. Zamfirescu said the existing grade was 12 feet above the street and wondered if the improvements would be put in at the nursery school level. He felt fairly high retaining walls would be required. Dave Ruth expressed appreciation for the concerns on behalf of the Asso- ciation. Don Owen apologized for not showing Mr. Zamfirescu the plan for the entry- way and said he would be in contact with him. He explained that Rutter Development and Cayman Development were really one and the same. He said they attempted to purchase -the corner parcel but that it was -priced much too high. In response to questions by Dr. Brown, Mr. Owen said the original plan that was seen by the Traffic Committee was for a private planned community, not a single family development. He said the Traffic Committee insisted on an emergency access on Crest, where no access was being proposed. He said the neighbors felt the original plan was inconsistent with the desires of the community, so the proposal was changed to a single family detached project with public streets through the community. He said they assumed there should be public access at both points with a proposal of this kind. He said they could control fencing, etc., through the CC&Rs.//,_,_-` * Mr. Hinchliffe asked if there was any problem with trails as outlined by staff. Mr. Owen said he would have to study that before making comment. He said he would respond to that at the next meeting. He felt they had provided the necessary trails along Crest and said he would not like to have the equestrian trails because this was not intended as a horse project. Mr. Hughes said the only point of access to the Altamira Canyon trail was where they were proposing the tennis court. He felt some consideration should be given there. Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, 17430 South Prairie Avenue, Torrance, said there would be no problem with a 36 -foot street width between curbs. He said single loaded streets were not really practical because of site conditions. He said they would require retaining walls or grading on the neighbor's property and would tend to block the view more. He said they could connect the trail very easily to Crenshaw so people could get down into the canyon. He said he had some real objections to trails along the rim, that they were done in the Presley tract and are unsightly, create drainage and erosion problems, present maintenance problems, and create security problems. He said if a trail is needed it was more desirable to put it in the public right-of-way. He did not feel an equestrian trail should be put in at all. He said there was no problem with grading to protect the Coastal Sage Scrub. Re cut and fill he said balancing dirt was the most economical and the most desirable. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hinchliffe said his concerns went back to the issues raised in the EIR discussion. He was not convinced that too much detail was given to the view analysis. Re grading he was concerned about 32 feet of fill in -the canyon and concurred with staff's concerns. He felt the trail system represented a problem that had to be resolved. Mr. Hughes said in addition to the above comments he was concerned about the corner lot. He felt access to that property from this development was desirable in that it would give the owner an alternative to taking access from the intersection. He felt the trails were important. He said he would be interested in the view analysis and some trade-offs on grading. Mr. Hinchliffe said he shared Mr. Hughes' concern about the corner lot and suggested that the owner be contacted about perhaps reconsidering his posi- tion. 1/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- Dr. Brown reminded the applicant of the serious concern about hydrology. He was concerned about access and did not feel Crest should be burdened with the additional ingress and egress. His discussion with members of the Traffic Committee indicated that the traffic figures were very low and understated, and that the Committee would prefer to have the entire burden on Crenshaw rather than Crest. Mr. Hughes did not see how the change in access would alter the traffic flow on Crest by any noticeable amount. He said he would like to see the Traffic Committee's report and read the background information. He said the developer has indicated that the Traffic Committee suggested emergency access where no access was proposed, but Dr. Brown was saying that the Traffic Committee suggested that only emergency access be permitted there. Dr. Brown agreed that they should see the Traffic Committee's report. He noted that this item was continued and there would be iio further notice and that interested parties should keep in touch with the City re when this item would be back before the Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 20 Mr. Thompson said the proposal was a Northwest corner Silver Spur Road retail/office development. He said and Crenshaw Blvd. to date staff received one letter of Landowner/Applicant: A. Levitt comments from the City of Rolling Hills Estates which was attached to the staff report. He said the letter from the preparer of the draft document responding to those comments was also attached to the staff report and that the preparer was available this evening to answer any questions. Staff recommended that public testimony be taken and if the comments presented could be adequately answered that the document be finalized. He noted that there was a model of the proposed project on dis- play and he referred to the other exhibits. Public hearing was opened. Albert Levitt, 2105 Rosita Place, Palos Verdes Estates, said he was available to answer any questions. Douglas Moran, geologist, 12791 Newport Avenue, Tustin, said they did three deep borings to obtain samples. He said what they visualize at this point is something that will improve the stability of the hillside which would benefit not only the project but the adjacent properties upslope. He said they will use a safety factor of at least 1.5. In response to questions by Dr. Baer, Mr. Moran said the depth of the bed- rock was just below the surface. He said the rock was similar to that which is found throughout most of the City. He discussed the arc. In response to questions by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Moran described the steps which would be taken to insure the slope stability during the construction phase. He said they were still in the planning process, that they have made pre- liminary analyses to see that the system is feasible and now they were try- ing to determine the amount of steel, depth, etc., that will be necessary for a reliable design system. In response to questions by Mr. Hughes, Greg Broughton, Planning Consultants Research, said the information on police protection on page 32 of the docu- ment was derived using a methodology developed by the Sheriff Department. He said he found that using a square footage projector was better than using head -counts or traffic generation. He said an office development would generate less crime than a retail development. Mr. Hughes said that methodology makes the assumption that covered parking structures have the same rate of incidence as open parking areas. Mr. Broughton said the question could be directed to the Lomita Sheriff station. 1/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9- • Mr. Hughes felt the issue should be pursued. would be divided up among five floors. C He asked how three restaurants Mr. Broughton explained that they would be split level or loft level. John Elizalde, 3330 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, said they were main- taining 30-40 foot rear setbacks. Mr. McTaggart asked why the condenser units were proposed to be located at the rear of the project, near adjoining residential units, instead of within the project itself. Mr. Elizalde said one of the considerations was to allow for easy access for maintenance, etc., and the other was to better conceal them from the resi- dents above. He said they would be very noticeable if they were located on the roof. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the noise impacts to the neighbors, as noise readily travels uphill. He said page 68 states no significant noise impacts and he did not feel this would be the case if they put mechanical equipment 30 feet from the property line. He did not feel the impacts had been properly addressed in the document. Mr. Elizalde said with an enclosure and landscaping surrounding the equip- ment, the noise would be isolated. He felt there was more opportunity to mitigate impacts in the proposed location than on the roof. Mr. McTaggart said there were other possible locations within the project itself besides on the roof. Mr. Broughton asked if there was also concern about the ventilation equip- ment. He felt it was unlikely that the noise level would be higher up the hill. Dr. Brown pointed out that this was a canyon and he felt the issue repre- sented a significant effect. Mr. Broughton said he would check with the acoustical consultant that pre- pared this section of the EIR concerning the condensers. He felt one thing that should not be overlooked is the amount of buffering of street noise that the building mass would give to the residents above. He said he would review the information with the acoustical contractor. Conrad Daigle, 28016 Beechgate Drive, said he shared some of the concerns addressed in the Rolling Hills Estates letter, such as noise and smells. He said one of his particular concerns was with the surfacing of the parking structure, and he felt there should be some sort of treatment that would eliminate the screeching that often goes on. He was also concerned about the lighting impact on his yard. He said another area of concern was with the day-to-day maintenance noise, such as the daily vacuuming of Long's parking lot at 6:00 a.m. He said there were also noise impacts from the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on delivery days. Re trash collection, he hoped that whatever access was provided it would be shielded. A.J. Dr. Brown noted that concerns regarding the sweeping, etc. Os ould be directed to the City of Rolling Hills Estates. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question by Dr. Baer, Mr. Broughton said there were two general categories of concern re traffic circulation and he explained them. He said in effect their conclusions were that adverse impacts to traffic generation were limited. He said concerns about ingress and egress were cited and detailed in the document. Dr. Brown said the comments tonight concerned geology, noise, lighting, maintenance, sheriff protection, and odors. 1/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -10- • 0 Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to finalize Environmental Impact Report No. 20 subject to the text of the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Hughes said he wished to have the matters of concern pursued and in- corporated into the document as an attachment. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed changing the motion to finalize the EIR subject to the minutes and additional data being attached. Mr. Hughes said he wanted to be sure that in the opinion of the Sheriff Department the factor applied to Peninsula Center as it now exists is the factor that should be used for this project. Mr. Thompson said he would be more comfortable if the Commission continued the matter and reviewed the additional requested information. The above motion and second were withdrawn. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to continue Environ- mental Impact Report No. 20 until information on the concerns expressed tonight is received and reviewed by the Commission. Mr. McTaggart said if it turns out that covered parking areas increase the crim&,,s increasing the costs for police protection, the total impact of t U At=' c. os s should be looked at as the costs involved were significant. The above motion was unanimously carried. RECESS At 12:25 a.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 12:35 a.m. with the same members present. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 63 Mr. Thompson said the request was for VARIANCE NO. 49 a two-story addition to an existing 31290 Palos Verdes Drive West one-story church building. He said a Landowner/Applicant: St. Paul's variance was required for expansion of Lutheran Church a nonconforming structure, to allow more than 50 percent of the required parking to be provided off-site and further than 300 feet away from the building to be served. He referred to the staff report which reviewed the project and Code considerations, and said the main issue was parking. He said currently the church had a parking deficiency of 53 spaces and would have a deficiency of 106 spaces with the proposed addition. He referred to the table within the staff report. He said the applicant had indicated that an informal agreement between the church and Golden Cove allowed them to park cars in the shopping center lot on Sunday mornings. He said this would require church visitors to walk around the vacant fibld which appeared to be a hazardous situation due to the lack of curb and sidewalks along this stretch of the road. Staff recom- mended that the item be continued so that the agreement between the church and the shopping center could be reviewed. He said someone from Golden Cove was present to speak on this matter. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe, Mr. Weber said there would be no on -street parking permitted along that area when Palos Verdes Drive was fully improved, primarily because there was going to be a bike lane. He said there would be a curb and gutter and it would be posted "no parking." Public hearing was opened. Carl Irwin, architect, said the project was designed to accomplish two things: 1) to remove the temporary building on the site, and 2) to allow the congre- gation to be in one room. He felt the parking provided was fine. He noted that the parking requirement for churches was the same as for auditoriums, etc. He said at one time there was a parking agreement with --the land behind them which was never recorded and, therefore, the easement was void. He 1/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES said they did not foresee any rapid growth of the congregation. He said they requested approval subject to the following conditions: 1) reciprocal parking; 2) that they pave and use for parking the property behind them which is owned by Golden Cove; 3) that they build a temporary walkway be- tween the church facility and Golden Cove; and 4) at such time as the Golden Cove development takes place that the parking be brought into con- formance, that this proposal be a temporary measure. He noted that even with the parking lot and "no parking" signs posted, some people will still park on the street. Mr. Hinchliffe asked how they would bring the parking into conformance when Golden Cove is developed. Mr. Irwin said they would have the ability to provide the parking with a reciprocal parking agreement. In response to further questions, Mr. Irwin said the'temporary parking would be directly to the rear of the existing parking area, that there was room for about 20 cars. He noted that the shopping center was not filled to its maximum capacity before noon on Sunday mornings. Howard Adler, one of the co-owners of the Golden Cove Shopping Center, said they want to cooperate with the church. He said they met with the building committee and indicated that they would work to help solve the church's parking problems. He said they were at a very preliminary stage with their plans for expansion of the shopping center and at this point they felt they could accommodate the church. He said Sunday mornings and evenings were when shopping centers were used the least. He said the center's expansion would include a large amount of parking. He said at this point they con- templated less office space than what they currently have and a substantial increase in retail space, plus an additional restaurant. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and carried, with Mr. Hughes dissenting, the public hearing was continued. Mr. Hughes said this was a relatively fixed congregation, that the same people will be using it after the addition. He said they have offered to build temporary parking that -would accommodate additional cars, and that the owner of the shopping center stated that they would agree to reciprocal parking. He felt it was unnecessary to continue the matter as he was com- fortable with the applicant's proposal. Mr. Hinchliffe said he still had some misgivings because of the magnitude of the variance. He agreed that perhaps the ratio required by the Code was excessive. Mr. Hughes said if the project was denied, there was no difference than if it was approved; that, in fact, if it was approved they would gain some parking. He felt the proposal was really a mitigation measure. Dr. Brown wondered how many parking spaces there would be if the Code re- quirement was reduced to one space per three permanent seats. Mr. Thompson said there would be 91 spaces. He also said in his opinion the demonstrated demand would not be greater than that. He felt the vari- ance could be acceptable with the following conditions: 1) that off-site parking be within 300 feet; 2) that the trailer be removed; 3) that "no parking" signs be posted along the street; and 4) that the addition be re- designed to provide more parking within the church lot itself. He said based on a reciprocal parking agreement and the above conditions, he felt the variance findings could be made. Mr. Irwin said he would have a difficult time redesigning the addition. He said they have spent a great deal of time on the design and that staff's suggestion would kill the project. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Thompson said the 300 feet was measured from the front door of the church. 1/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -12- Mr. Hughes said the distance was established because it was felt that people would not walk a further distance. He said they were dealing with a fixed congregation with a parking problem that will exist regardless of what happens with this application. Dr. Brown said it appeared that the Commission was amenable to granting a variance that was acceptable to staff, subject to certain conditions and following review of the reciprocal agreement. The item was continued. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Thompson said the informal joint Rancho Palos Verdes/Rolling Hills Es- tates Planning Commission work session was scheduled for Wednesday, February 4 at 7:30 p.m. and would be held here. He said there would be no public notification although the meeting certainly would be open. He said it was planned to be an informational meeting with both Commissions raising issues. He said he would prepare an agenda and a staff report which outlines the project and its relationship to the General Plan and the Development Code. He said he was hoping for a round table dis- cussion rather than a formal meeting. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown said they should set a date at the next meeting for a work session on the issue of parking recreation ve- hicles. He further said he would wait until the next meeting to report on the Mayor's meeting which was held Saturday. ADJOURNMENT At 1:27 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, January 27, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 1/13/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -13-