Loading...
PC MINS 19830614M I N U T E S' City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting June 14, 1983 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hinchliffe. PRESENT: McNulty, Hughes, Hinchliffe, McTaggart LATE ARRIVAL: Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Sharon W. Hightower, Associate Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt and Assistant Planners Jonathon Shepherd and Dino Putrino. COMMUNICATIONS Consultants Research; a report Cost information from staff. CONSENT CALENDAR OLD BUSINESS Golden Cove Project G.P.A. No. 12, Z.C. No. 12 E.I.R. No. 22 The following communications were received regarding Golden Cove Project: a_letter from resident; a report from Planning from J. Ray Construction; and, Housing Mr. McTaggart made motion to have minutes moved to end of agenda. Motion passed. Ms. Lavitt gave staff report and recommendation concluding that Greg Broughton, environmental consultant on the project, was at the meeting to answer questions brought up at last meeting. Mr. McTaggart stated that the Commission had received information regarding average income and median value of housing but that no one had asked for mode and that they did ask for statistics and staff had complied. He further stated that the Commission should have a profile and not an average to see how moderate income housing will affect housing in Rancho Palos Verdes and that they needed to know how many units of comparable value are in the market place and how many now exist in the City and in Eastview. Ms. Lavi_tt stated that there were ranges of value for condominium projects in the Eastview area with average value and unit size in report. Mr. McTaggart asked if it was based on average value and was it not developed from a profile regarding moderate housing related to units in that range and that if they take the median value of the units that there is no moderate housing in this project. Ms. Lavitt stated that if the units were proposed at $90,000. or below that that would be below what is in report for the smallest units. Mr. McTaggart stated that there was only one case to that effect and that perhaps it should include how many units are under $100,000. and what effect Eastview has on housing stock of the City. He further stated that he would like to have seen numbers and ranges rather than averages because the project has three ranges of value within it when compared to existing stock. Mr. Hinchliffe opened the continued public hearing. 0- 0 Mr. Greg Broughton, 141 Hart Avenue, Santa Monica, addressed the Commission. He discussed views and significant and substantial impacts. Mr. McTaggart asked if Mr. Broughton considered the difference between the two projects, as zoned now and as proposed, to be comparable. Mr. Broughton stated that the earlier commercial project was lower at one end and higher at another end. The visual impact was comparable in his opinion. Mr. McTaggart asked about the view across the Palos Verdes Properties tract and did Mr. Broughton consider the view significant related to that project. Mr. Broughton stated that he did not. He also stated that their view was broader than the City Code but still applicable and definitely part of the E.I.R. Mr. Hughes stated that the summary of the report was no significant impact and that this project appears to be in conflict with the goals of the community and CEQA. Mr. Broughton stated that under the subject of land use the project does not comply that is why the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change was submitted. That the applicant wanted commercial at beginning but found that there was not a market strong enought to substain those uses. That they had looked at this project as to compatability with land use. Traffic generated for this project is 1/2 to 1/3 less than what would have been generated by the original commercial project. Mr. McTaggart stated that he felt the alternative densities were not explor6d enough and that the E.I.R. was inadequate in addressing those affects. Mr. Broughton stated he felt the information needed was in the report and that the purpose of alternative analysis is to mitigate or to find other means to accomplish project objectives. Mr. Howard Adler, 505 No. Tustin, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission stating that the Council and staff asked them to address moderate housing in respect to the Housing Element of the City. Mr. Robert Smith, 2004 Yacht Vigilant, Newport Beach, addressed the Commission stating that they were complying with the constraints and they had certain fixed costs, the cost of land, much of site work, etc. that does not change no matter what. If density goes down the costs must be spread over the units. As developers they were seeking about a 12 percent profit. We are attempting to address moderate and above moderate income groups. Mr. McTaggart stated that for the first time they were seeing good data --by a developer in regards to various costs and profits but that he found it hard to relate the numbers in terms of decreasing moderate units. Mr. Smith stated that they felt the market schedule pricing was were it should be. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Smith if the project meets the Development Code standards. Mr. Smith stated that other than some variations they have meet all the requirements. Mr. Hughes stated that the applicant stated that he is going to pay the City some $300,000. in park fees (in lieu) and if we are looking for an alternative that should be discussed. That money might be available regardless of the number of units proposed and he would like to see other financial alternatives used without using the high density of the alternative of this project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 June 14, 1983 2 Mr. Hinchliffe stated that the applicant indicated 331 million dollars was paid for 6.3 acres and that he found that number difficult cult in that the records show that the applicant had paid $500,000./acre for commercial that the applicant was going to develop as residential. Also that the applicant did not consider density below 17.9 d.u./ac. because they were down to one moderate income unit. Mr. Adler stated that the original owner had the land for commercial use and that the present owners had wanted it for residential from the beginning. Also that Mr. Adler would like the Planning Commission to decide at this meeting or the next on all the issues regarding this project. Mr. Bill Gemmell, 31031 Via Rviera, addressed the Commission speaking against the zone change. Mrs. Jeannette Mucha, 5538 Littlebow Road, President of the Homeowners Council, addressed the Commission stating that she had with her -a request addressed to the City Council and the Planning Commission asking for denial of General Plan Amendment No. 12 and a petition for that denial which included 1,405 signatures of residents of the City. Mrs. Mucha then presented the request and petition to the Planning Commission. Marina rina Simes, 22 Sea Cove Drive, addressed the Commission stating that she felt that this project was not in accordance with the rules and regulations of the City. Dr. Brown moved to continue the public hearing, Mr. McTa5gart seconded, and p4ssed to continue the public hearing. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that the Planning Commission needed to deal with the project with regards to density and impact. Mr. Hinchliffe asked staff what did the City Council ask the applicant to do. Director Hightower stated that the applicant ca ' nt, was first asked to consider adding some moderate income housing onto commercial and the applicant eventually proposed totally residential. The City Council did not take a stand and there has been no action on this. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that he was worried about density and alternatives and that the alternatives have not been addressed properly, He further stated that the Commission has received an adverse reaction to the density. Dr. Brown asked about the alternative of if"we really need.moderate housing units.. Mr. Hughes asked --the Commission --to deal• with moderate priced -units as --they relate to the Development Code and that there may be some unit cut off were it will not be desirable ble and that they might want to use park land fees to do that. If they looked at open space in the Development Code and stacked units that they have, they could probably tell how many units could be Mlilt on that site. Mr. Smith stated that their preception of the charge they received from the City Council was that the City wanted them to address the Housing Element plan, to adhere to City standards, and to provide some reasonable priced units. we approached it from the stacked flats point of view because of costs. Dr. Brown suggested that they not talk about moderate housing and let the Commission deal with the 6.3 acres and what type of project should go there with the restrictions of the Development Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 June 14, 1983 3 Mr. Hinchliffe stated that they were looking to what the Planning Commission perception was and what the applicant would like on the land. He further stated that the Commission wants to see what they applicant can do as to moderate units but that there is not an acceptance for 17.9/d.u.. The Commission would like to see something that brings the density down even to not including moderate housing. Dr. Brown told Mr. Adler that he needed to show mixed and commercial alter- natives. Mr. Adler stated they would if that were feasible to do so. Dr. Brown stated that they could come back to the Planning Commission and say that it is not feasible to have moderate income housing. Mr. Adler stated that they could submit that data. Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the Commission thinks the residential zoning makes more sense than the commercial. Mr. Hughes stated that he had no objection to a appropriate residential project there. Mr. Smith asked what the is the density the Commission is looking for and what if it is not feasible. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that he was not convinced that the applicant needed to stay to the 17:9 d.u./acre to provide housing in Rancho Palos Verdes to help the City achieve its goal of moderate to high moderate income housing. Mr. Smith asked if they could have a work session. Dr. Brown stated he would like to see the information before the Planning Commission scheduled a work session. Director Hightower stated that there was no point of a work session unless new information is proVided. Mr. Hinchliffe asked how much time does staff need. Director Hightower stated 2 or 3 days prior to a work session. Mr. Smith stated that they could get some data to staff before the work session. It was moved that a work session be held at 6:30 p.m. on June 23, 1983 between the applicant and the Planning Commission and the Environmental Services staff. Mr. Hinchliffe called for a recess at 10:10 p.m. The Planning Commission meeting reconvened -at 10:20 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Grading No. 648 Mr. Putrino gave the staff report and staff's 28128 & 28208 P.V.Dr. West recommendation of denial. Kay Nakanishi & Ray Hasty Mr. David Breiholz, 28630 Roan Rd., addressed the Commission as the respresentative for Nakanishi and Hastey, stating that a soils report was included in their grading plan and that filling in the canyon was the most economical alternative. He further stated that since the house was constructed, the land has become unstable. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Breiholz to describe where the lot was unstable. Mr. Breiholz described conditions of instabilization and that after the soil settles the house begins to fall apart. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 June 14, 1983 41 Mr. Hughes asked if the house was settling or is the land eroding. Mr. Brieholz stated both and further added that there were cracks in the structure and that the soil is eroding. Mr. McTaggart stated that it seemed to him that other work was being done besides the house. , Mr. Breiholz stated that that was correct. Mr. McTaggart stated that perhaps stablization beneath the house would correct the problem. Mr. Brieholz stated that the mass grading was for slope erosion. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that he understood that Mr. Hasty wanted to mud jack. Mr. Brieholz stated that mud jacking would only help to stablize beneath the house and not the adjacent slope. Mr. Hastey addressed the Commission stating that Mr. Nakanishi's rear yard was dropping and the bank was moving down. He further stated that his yard was moving and if it was --not stablized_the house was going to. -move with it and that this could not be done by compaction and that they wanted to add to what is filled already in the canyon. Mr. Hinchliffe asked about the existing fill in the canyon and the August 16th letter. The City had asked Mr. Hasty to provide this letter, -'but, Mr. Hasty was unable to do so. Mr. Hughes recommended that the Commission ask the applicant to provide adequate documentation relating to geology problems and then respond. Dr. Brown moved that the Commission approve Mr. Hughes suggestion and that the Planning Commission should table this item until hydrogeological and geology information is received and reviewed. Mr. McNulty seconded, motion was unanimously passed. Grading No. 657 Mr. Putrino gave the staff report and re - 27501 S. Western Ave. commendation of approval. Green Hills Memorial Park Dr. Brown moved to approve Grading No. 657, Mr. Hughes seconded, motion was unanimously passed. Grading No. 646 Mr. Putrino gave the staff report recommending 4201 P.V. Dr. East denial of Grading No. 646. Mr. Putrino also George Gabric announced that the applicant had brought a geotechnical engineer to further explain and add to given information. Mr. McTaggart asked Mr. Putrino if there was any view problem. Mr. Putrino replied that there was not any view problem. Mr. Hinchliffe asked where in the process was the parcel map. Mr. Putrino stated that it would be heard later this month or next. Dr. Brown asked if the proposed residence was larger than the approve. Mr. Putrino stated they were approximately the same but there was more grading proposed around it. Mr. Dale Hinkle, 343 Temple St., Long Beach, addressed the Commission stating that the foundation plan, as first approed, used drill piers to stablize the hill. Mr. Hinkle then reviewed the original plans and stabilization of the proposed plans using the chalkboard. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 June 14, 1983 Dr. Brown asked if the reason for this grading was to stabilize the slope. Mr. Hinkle stated yes as opposed to using drill piers. Director Hightower asked if the fill in the bottom of the canyon he drew was on the plans. Mr. Hinchliffe stated that he would like to wait until the Parcel Map was heard before deciding on this application. Dr. Brown moved to table this item and schedule it to be heard with the Parcel Map. Mr. McNulty seconded, motion unanimously passed. Request for Exemption from Mr. Shepherd gave the staff report outlining Moratorium the violations and stated staff's recommendation 7 Fruittree and how to proceed if a denial was approved. Craig Ehlenberger Mr. Hughes asked about November 1981 grading. Mr. Shepherd explained that that area was restored and then the addition was constructed. Dr. Brown moved a recommendation to City Council denying the application based on staff findings. Mr. Hinchliffe seconded, action unanimously passed. Minutes of May 24, 1983 Recommendation was made to delete the third sentence in last paragraph on Page 3. Motion was made to adopt the minutes of May 24, 1983 as amended. Motion was unanimously passed. Motion was made and seconded to adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. to June 23, 1983 at 6:30 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 14, 1983