Loading...
PC MINS 198305240 0 ()a) M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting May 24, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: Hinchliffe, Hughes, McNulty LATE ARRIVAL: None ABSENT: McTaggart, Brown Also present were Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. -Hightower, Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt and Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd and Dino Putrino. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Hughes requested that Item A. Minutes of May 10, 1983 be pulled momentarily from the Consent Calendar. Item B. Minutes of the Planning Commission joint meeting with City Council held on May 11, 1983 were approved as presented. Item C. Tentative Tract No. 32977,Conditional Use Permit No. 27 asking for a one year extension was approved as presented. Amendments to Item A. Minutes Mr. Hughes -requested that :the -following of May 10, 1983 be added to the next to last paragraph of Page 3: "Mr. Hughes also asked Mr. Adler if Mr. Adler was acquainted with the Alfred Gobar Associates, Inc. report dated June 1982 when they acquired the property." Mr. Hinchliffe requested that his name be used as the Commission member asking Mr. Adler questions regarding pricing on Page 4 of minutes. Mr. Hughes requested that on Page 4, the following replace the next to last paragraph: "That we would hear all the 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. Mr. Hughes moved to adopt the minutes of May 10, 1983 as amended. Mr. McNulty seconded, motion passed. OLD BUSINESS Golden Cove Project G.P.A. No.12, Z.C. No. 12, E.I.R. No. 22 Bredero Hawthorne, Inc. J. Ray Construction Co. Ms. Lavitt gave the staff report with the recommendation to discuss and whether to approve in concept General Plan Amendment No. 12, Zone Change No. 12 and Environmental Impact Report No. 22. Mr. Hinchliffe asked staff if the issues staff requested on the EIR were satisfied. Ms. Lavitt replied that their questions were answered and unless further issues were brought up in the public hearing process the EIR was adequate. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the question brought up at the last meeting by Dr. Brown could be tied properly to the EIR and whether that was an appropriate area. Ms. Lavitt stated that it could be included in the minutes that are included with the EIR. Mr. Robert Smith, 2004 Yacht Vigilant, Newport Beach, addressed the Commission stating that at the last meeting the Tuesday before last, questions and additional material was requested from the applicant. He further stated that the applicant had submitted some of the material and was working on the rest of the material. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that in the recorded minutes of the last meeting Mr. McTaggart had asked the applicant to provide information regarding people within the community who had expressed interest in the project and that Dr. Brown had asked the question as to whether the applicant had considered lower density and moderate pricing on this pro3ect. Mr. Smith stated they were working on that information and have abstracted the information in the marketing report that they thought was pertinent to that question and are available for questions that might arise. The following people spoke in opposition to the development. Mr. Frank Weiss, 30711 Via La Cresta, with concern over density and precedent. Mrs. Luella Wike, 29172 Oceanridge Drive, requested the zoning remain commerical. Mr. William Gemmell, 31031 Via Rivera, spoke in opposition to high density. Mrs. Eileen Trujillo, 31023 Via Rivera, opposed the high density. Mrs. Maureen Griffin,5-Giftger Root Lane, was against the density and traffic. Mr. Fred L. Eaton, 30615 Cartier Drive, spoke in opposition. Mr. Hughes moved to continue'the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. McNulty and passed. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that staff said they felt the EIR was complete with the additions from applicant. We have the issue Mr. McTaggart raised at the last meeting regarding names of people in the area contacted by the applicant which the applicant says he is working on. Mr. Hinchliffe then asked if there were issues of the EIR that have not been addressed that the Commission needed to discuss with the applicant or staff. Mr. Hughes stated that he had problems with several parts of the EIR. He wanted to know what the proposed commercial expansion would do to the established relationships between related surrounding land uses; a high density proposal directly across the street from an RS -1 district. The discussion in the EIR of view has no criteria laid down as to how that judgement has been made. Mr'. Hughes felt there should be a view analysis done. In addition there should be a definition of "adverse but not significant." Ms. Lavitt stated that there is a definition for significant and she did not believe that this falls under the definition. However, it may be interpreted to fall under a significant adverse impact. Ms. Lavitt stated that she felt that the view issue would be adequately dealt with under the review of the tract map, the conditional use permit, and the grading application. Mr. Hinchliffe stated he agreed but that the issue here was the use of the word adverse as opposed to significant. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- May 24, 1983 2 Mr. Hughes stated that there is no summary traffic analysis related to residential. Ms. Lavitt stated that in the report is some detailed information relating to traffic. Mr. Hughes stated that he could only see lower density in the EIR to comply with our General Plan and that the only summary that could be made is that the least dense project should be the only one that can be approved from an environmental point of view. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that perhaps we could get the applicant to have the person who wrote the report here to respond to these issues. Mr. Hughes stated that an additional item is the drainage from the site not having any environmental impact since when you go seaward of the bluff line there is scouring that is taking place at the bluff edge. Ms. Lavitt stated that we would have to back track to see where the water is coming from and how it affects the storm drain system. Mr. McNulty asked if the EIR took into account the Eastview area being brought into the City as to moderate pricing. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that relative to price scale in the Eastview area perhaps staff could go through and determine what the mean or average value of housing in the Easview area is and did they have any information now on average pricing in that area. Director Hightower stated that she did not have the information with her but that the area was a little lower median value, but not much. Mr. McNulty stated that an alternative might be for small two or three bedroom houses on individual lots and values between the two should be taken into account before we approve the EIR. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if it was appropriate to go back to the applicant and ask them to do the report. Director Hightower stated that at any time during the public hearing the Planning Commission can ask the applicant to respond. We can ask the applicant to put the census data from Eastview into the City data if the Commission wants those overall figures, but it is not going to make much change relative to housing stock other than very little decrease in median value. Mr. Hinchliffe then opened discussion on the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Mr. Hughes stated that he had a problem with this project stemming from the three alternatives summarized in the EIR. They are listed as no change in the project, pre -project conditions, and development at alter- native residential --densities. - This project is aimed at high densit� with no defined -analysis for any other density. Mr. Hughes further stated that he would like to propose that the City hire an independent consulting firm to analyze this project in terms of what is proposed and in terms of alternatives and what criteria should be used independent of what the applicant states so that we can make a legitimate decision of land use of this site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- May 24, 1983 9 Mr. Hinchliffe asked Director Hightower that if we did not have this application before us and we were at a point of time where we wanted to update the General Planjwould that be something staff would do or would you retain the services of an consultant. How would you handle the Golden Cove area to address alternative uses or mixed uses instead of accepting one mixed use as suggested by an applicant. Director Hightower stated that staff would program sufficient staff time to do an updating as described. If we needed some expertise in some area we would ask City Council to hire someone. We would probably not get into a detailed study of the economics of land use or marketing. In the past if we have had lack of analysis in an application we have sometimes required the applicant to pay for the anaylsis. Mr. Hughes stated that is how he would like it handled, that -he was talking of the City hiring an independent analyst and billing the applicant. Mr. Howard Adler, applicant, addressed the Commission stating he would like to respond to the questions raised by Mr. Hughes. He believed that some of the data that Mr. Hughes required had been done at various times and then perhaps filed away. Mr. Adler commented that they had attempted to find the best consultant available. In terms of density and density pricing, the General Plan and Land Use Plan, the Ralph Castaneda report may have addressed some of the issues. A comprehensive analysis was done on density, pricing, etc. and had been presented several months ago at a work session with some members of the Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Adler further stated that they had based their analysis on what their consultants had told them, that they had presented this data in good faith, and he wondered if it was necessary to test the City's experts against their experts. Mr. Hinchliffe asked Mr. Adler what range of density he had looked at. Mr. Adler replied that the more affordable units.,the higher the density and in the case of less affordable units;,the lower the density. The proposal before you is based on our consensus of what the people in this City would like. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested that if he wanted to further this application that the Commission needs a total breakdown of the complete process from A to Z. You must show where and how you have done everything, so the Commission can refresh its memory as to what has been submitted previously. - Mr. Adler stated that he would be happy to comply with the Commission's request. Mr. Hinchliffe requested that the Commission move on to other items on the agenda. Recess was called at 9:35 p.m. Meeting recovened at 9:45 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Sign Permit No. 156 Dino Putrino presented the staff report St. Peter's Presbyterian and recommendation of denial for Sign Church Permit No. 156. 6410 Palos Verdes Drive S. Mr. McNulty asked Mr. Putrino about the nine foot measurement and if the sign could be cantilevered. Mr. John Tucker, 2820 Paseo Del Mar addressed the Commission as spokeperson for the church stating that the reason for the sign is to identify the entrance. We would like it lighted and the lights will be on a timer. Ruth Gralow, 2545 Via Sanchez addressed the Commission in favor of the sign. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- May 24, 1983 4 0 Reverend Donald J. Barnes, 9 Packet Road addressed the Commission in favor of the sign. The Commission discussed the bike path to be constructed on the property line and the visibility issues. Mr. Hinchliffe moved to approve Sign Permit No. 156. Mr. Hughes seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Tentative Parcel Map Mr. Shepherd gave the staff report and No. 15519 recommendation to open and continue the 2816 Colt Road public hearing until the Fire Department R. D. Pierson has completed its review and staff has reviewed the report on buildable area and received and reviewed a preliminary grading plan. Mr. Hughes asked staff if he was correct in understanding that the --- set back shown on the map as proposed cannot be done without a variance, that there was no direct access to the existing lot, and the lot would only have access by another created easement from another private property. Mr. Shepherd stated that Mr. Hughes was correct. Mr. McNulty asked staff if they had read the communication received regarding this property and is there a second unit on the property. Mr. Shepherd replied that the Building Department is following up on the violation and that there are two kitchen facilities and two meters and that the Building Department has issued notice to have that corrected. Mr. Hinchliffe opened the public hearing. Mr. Don Pierson, P.O. Box 1187, Sand Pedro, addressed the Commission. Mr. Pierson stated that the land is not land locked. That there is a twenty foot easement to the lot attaching it to a road. Mr. Hughes moved to continue the public hearing. motion was seconded and passed unanimously to continue. Additions2in Mokitotium, Director Hightower stated that City Council Area had referred two items to -the Planning Commission: (1) Draft Ordinance requested by the City Council but denied by a 2-2 vote and referred to Planning Commission, and (2) The Ehlenberger Request for Exemption that City Council had referred to the Commission. Director Hightower suggested that there be some discussion and if the Commission needed additional information from staff. Mr. Hinchliffe asked Director Hightower when there might be some resolution to the Ordinance. Director Hightower stated that the Planning Commission would have to resolve what recommendation to send to Council. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that he felt that the Ehlenberger problem was a black and white problem whereas the Portuguese Bend Club violations were in a gray area. Director Hightower stated that the City,-Coundil had approved the other applications under a section of the Ordinance for minor construction but could not see Ehlenberger as minor. The Planning Commission made the decision to hear the Request for Exemption of Mr. Ehlenberger at the next meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- May 24, 1983 5 STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower reported on the following: Encroachment Permits This item was referred to Public Works by City Council to report back. Second Units Resolution will be again on City Council agenda on June 7, 1983. Eastview Goals City Council approved the Eastview Goals Committee and that Committee had its first meeting May 24, 1983. The Committee's report is to be complete by August 17, 1983. Conditional Use Permit This item was approved by City Council and No. 84/Parcel Map a resolution is being prepared to present No. 15475 at the next Council meeting. At 10:40 p.m. the motion was made, seconded and unanimously passed to adjourn. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 24, 1983