Loading...
PC MINS 19830510M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Ad3ourned Meeting May 10, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Hinchliffe, Brown, McNulty, McTaggart, Hughes LATE ARRIVAL: None ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. Hightower, Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt and Assistant Planner Jonathon Shepherd. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Hughes requested that Item B. -Tentative Tract No. 39673 and Item F. -Conditional Use Permit No. 26 be removed from the Consent Calendar. Mr. McTaggart asked that Item C. - Tentative Tract No. 37818 and Item G. -Grading No. 637 be removed from the Consent Calendar. AMENDED CONSENT CALENDAR Item A. Minutes of April 26, 1983. Item D. Tentative Tract No. 37060, Conditional Use Permit No. 76 - Extension. Item E. Tentative Parcel Map No. 14570, Minor Exception Permit No. 119 - Extension. Item H. Code Amendment No. 15 - Second Units. By motion of Dr. Brown, the Consent Calendar was unanimously approved as amended. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM B. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. Mr. Hughes stated that he felt 39673, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT sufficient time had elapsed and how NO. 58 - 1 year extension. could the Planning Commission tell if Tuman3an & Tumanjan the applicant will start in a year. Ms. Lavitt stated that the applicant's plans were now in plan check. Mr. Hughes moved to change the extension time from one (1) year to six (6) months. Motion was seconded and unanimously carried. ITEM C. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 37818, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 59 - Six month extension. Sikand Engineering Association Ms. Lavitt replied, "six months". #600A -Al Mr. McTaggart asked staff how many months wold be required to coincide With the 2-1/2 year limitation. Mx. F. Weiss, 30711 Via La Cresta, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant has had over two years since the original plans were done. There have been two winters of heavy rains which may have caused severe damage to the area including pot holes on Hawthorne Boulevard. Mr. Weiss further stated that he felt that the applicant had had two years to begin construction and that an extension was unfounded. Mr. McTaggart asked Mr. Weiss if he felt there might be landslide movement. Mr. Weiss replied that he did not know, that he was concerned with water movement and damage to streets by trucks taking dirt out. Mr. Hughes asked staff about the depressions on Hawthorne Boulevard. Director Hightower stated that damage was caused by storm drains. Mr. McTaggart made a motion to allow a six month extension. Mr. McNulty seconded and motion was unanimously carried. ITEM F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Hughes stated his concern regarding NO. 26 - RESOLUTION Section 3. He felt that the Planning Peninsula Racquet Club Commission never asked the applicant to test an effective method of reducing lighting. He further stated that he would like Section 3 removed from the Resolution, or delete the word "Lighting" and insert the word "play". Dr. Brown stated that the Commission had asked for shields to be used as one of the conditions of approval. Dr. Brown stated that he would like Section 3 to read, "the applicant was unwilling......" or something of that nature. Mr. McTaggart stated that he felt that Section 3 was a part of the condi- tions, and the applicant did not object to the condition at the time of implementation. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that he agreed with Mr. McTaggart that this was a part of the conditions. Dr. Brown made the motion to accept Resolution No. 83-7 as amended to read in Section 3: That the applicant was unwilling to test a possibly effective method to reduce the impact of extended nighttime lighting. Motion was seconded and approved with Mr. Hughes and Mr. McNulty dissenting. ITEM G. GRADING NO. 637 - Mr. McTaggart stated that he did not New Footprint understand the notation on Page 2 Al Serpa regarding the flood hazard areas. Ms. Lavitt stated that it was a retaining wall in the flood hazard area and that It will be removed. It is not part of the plan. Mr. McTaggart asked if this was removed at the request of staff. Ms. Lavitt answered "yes". Mr. McTaggart stated that if staff removed this and the applicant has to do a revision, perhaps the applicant should resubmit new pians. Ms. Lavitt stated that it was not part of what is approved and the plans may be approved as corrected. John Vilicich, 1622 Gaffey Street, San Pedro, addressed the Commission stating that plans do not need the retaining wall and they have removed from the plans. 5/10/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- PA Dr. Brown made the motion to approve Grading No. 637. Mr. McNulty seconded the motion and motion was passed with Mr. McTaggart dissenting. NEW BUSINESS GOLDEN COVE PROJECT Ms. Lavitt reported that there were seven different decisions to be made as stated in the staff report. The E.I.R., General Plan Amendment No. 12 and Zone Change No. 12, surrounding land uses, compatibility, and density would be discussed this evening. Ms. Lavitt also commented that the Commission may also deal with the density in overlay district and that a chart was provided. The applicant is requesting the development of 119 residential condominium units on 6.3 acres. Mr. Hinchliffe opened the public hearing with those speaking on behalf of the project first. Mr. Howard Adler, 505 North Tustin, #282, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission stating that the project was very complex. When the partners acquired the vacant land they anticipated a commercial venture but was not feasible. In terms of commercial versus residential, the interest for the expansion of the center has diminished; and are having trouble finding tenants as it exists now. The real viability of upgrading and expanding the existing center is tied to the housing issue. There are four major items to make this adaptable to residential use; (1) site is adjacent to commercial area. (2) it is close to City Hall. (3) is a less intense use of the site. Mr. McTaggart asked Mr. Adler how did he explain why the E.I.R. is not ready and not complete if you worked closely with staff. Mr. Adler replied that he did not know that the E.I.R. was not final until he had read the staff report. Mr. McTaggart asked Mr. Adler that he had mentioned the desirability of units close to City Hall and that he thought that condominiums would have less to do with City Hall than single family residences. Mr. Adler replied that the City is going to have a park and there are recreational facilities here at City Hall plus it is a community center too. Mr. McTaggart asked Mr. Adler how they arrived at their density figures. Mr. Adler stated that they did not arrive at those figures just because of City Hall. That it was based on studies they had done on the site. Mr. McTaggart asked about the consortium. Mr. Adler gave a brief informal discussion on the sequence of events that occurred in the past. Mr. McTaggart stated that Mr. Adler mentioned several people were involved in this from this staff. Mr. McTaggart asked what other interested community people were interested in this project. Mr. Adler stated that he would have to look these people up but they will provide that information to the Commission. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Adler when they acquired the property did they know at that time that it was zoned commercial. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Adler if Mr. Adler was acquainted with the Alfred Gobar Associates, Inc. report dated June 1982 when they acquired the property. 5/10/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- 3 0 0 Mr. Adler replied that they had acquired the property in 1980 and knew that it was zoned commercially. Dr. Brown asked Mr. Adler that if he was not considering any commercial expansion and was just considering family homes. With regard to the moderate price structure could Mr. Adler put in a viable project at a much lower density if moderate price housing was part of this picture. Mr. Adler replied that he would have to have time to think about this. Gregory Broughton, 141 Hart Avenue, Santa Monica, addressed the Commission stating that his firm had prepared the E.I.R. and that he had received comments submitted to staff and that he would like to comment on them orally then respond in writing to the minor revisions of the E.I.R. Mr. Robert Smith, 2004 Yacht Vigilant, addressed the Commission stating that they were proposing 119 units on the site adjacent to Golden Cove Center. Mr. Hinchliffe asked Mr. Smith how they were pricing these units. Mr. Smith stated the prices were $75,000. to $170,000. 75% would be priced under the average condominium price ($170,000.) in Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Hinchliffe asked what the price of affordability would be. Mr. Smith replied $75,000. for 1 bedroom and $95,000. for a 2 bedroom. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that that averaged out to $120. per square foot and asked if that fell in the range of Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Smith stated that the price is more like $135. per square foot, market price. , Dr. Brown asked Mr. Smith if it was feasible to put in a project with no moderate housing with less density at the same price as $135. per square foot. Mr. Smith stated that they would be concerned about lower density with higher prices. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that they would not justify the ten lower priced units. Mr. Smith stated that they were trying to provide a type of housing as outlined in the City's Housing Element. Mr. McNulty asked if Mr. Smith felt there was an overstock of condominiums. Mr. Smith replied that it depends on price and location plus quality. Jeanette Mucha, President of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners, 5538 Littlebow, Rancho Palos Verdes, addressed the Commission stating that the Homeowners Council was opposed to the changing of the General Plan and Zoning of this site. They would like the site to remain as commercial neighborhood and that this brings the City back to pre -Save the Coastline days. Frank Weiss, 30711 Via La Cresta, Rancho Palos Verdes, addressed the Commission stating that the staff report mentions seven steps, and that he thought it was a mistake to do a study on a concurrent basis. Also, that the developers should submit their plans one at a time. Mr. Hughes stated that the Commission may consider the applications but will not approve them simultaneously. That we would hear all the 5/10/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- A/ information related to the project at one time thereby giving a global view of the project but that each application would be considered in its proper order. Francesco's, 31218 Palos Verdes Drive West, owner addressed the Commission stating that he felt the project would help Golden Cove Center. Dr. Brown moved to continue the public hearing. Motion was seconded and unanimously carried. Mr. Hughes stated that staff had asked the Commission to give direction to the applicant and next week go into depth on the E.I.R. The motion was made by Mr. Hughes to add amendment. Motion was seconded and passed. Recess at 9:40 p.m. Reconvened at 9:50 p.m. STAFF REPORTS TRACT NO. 32210 Wall Tim Burrell Director Hightower gave the staff report concluding with the opinions of the City Attorney regarding the wall stated in the staff report. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant, addressed the Commission stating that what we are talking about is a wall along Crenshaw Boulevard. We have approval for a five foot high wall along the property line. We are twenty-two feet back from the edge of the road curb. The lower rail will be forty-two inches above existing ground and the higher rail will be sixty inches above existing ground. We are not talking about view because Mr. Murphy's house would be only three feet higher than the wall. What we are talking about is the impression a person gets as he drives by. If you go from the sidewalk and the curb and go to the property line the effective wall is thirty-eight inches above curb. We do have some existing wall that will go below there. There are no hard and fast restrictions on walls. There is also the delegation of authority to staff to do certain things and they did. He did not think this is a situation you can deal with as staff error. Mr. McTaggart asked Mr. Burrell if the City had accepted any of the conditions in the Conditional Use Permit and did Mr. Burrell provide any services. Mr. Burrell stated he had done everything except the wall. Mr. McTaggart stated that he was talking about the park. Mr. Burrell replied that the work was a direct contract with the City and only some of the road work was conditioned, and some of the landscaping was part of the Conditional Use Permit. Director Hightower stated that she was not aware of the height above curb line and does it extend that way all the way down Crenshaw Boulevard to Park Place. Mr. Steve Murphy, 24871 Luna Bonita, Laguna Hills, addressed the Commission and stated that he felt Mr. Burrell made all the pertinent points quite clear. Dr. Brown moved to take no further action on this item. With Mr. McTaggart seconding, motion was unanimously approved. 5/10/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES is FIRE RESISTANT ROOF STUDY Mr. Shepherd gave the staff report stating that the Fire Department had finished the Fire Hazard Zone Analysis Program. Mr. Shepherd also stated the alternatives as presented in the report. Captain Larson, Los Angeles County Fire Department, addressed the Commis- sion and showed the different areas of concern on a color coded Fire Hazard map which the Fire Department had put together. Informal discussion was held regarding the different areas of concern. Dr. Brown asked if the Fire Department wanted Class "B" in Fire Hazard areas, Class "C" for re -roofing in other areas and Class "B" on all new construction. Captain Larson replied "yes". Dr. Brown made the motion to send Alternative "A" as stated in staff report to the City Council. Mr. McNulty seconded and motion was unanimously carried. At 10:40 p.m., it was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn. 5/10/83 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- X,