Loading...
PC MINS 19860527M I N U T E S PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 27, 1986 The meeting was called to order to order at 7:35 PM by Chairman Von Hagen at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: MC NULTY, ORTOLANO, VON HAGEN, WIKE ABSENT: NONE LATE: HODGE COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Von Hagen noted the following communications: (1) Revision of the executed Draft Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map 44514. (2) Letter from Mr. J. Holladay, lst V.P. American Radio Relay League (ARRL), concerning the ARRL interest in preserving the Wallace site of the W6AM radio station and some of the memorabilia related thereto. NEW BUSINESS The Commissioners declared their association with the proposed Tentative _ Tract Map No. 44514 as follows: :.,r. Von Hagen sta;.ed he is an amatuer radio operator, member of Palos Verdes Am( uer Radio Club, a member of ;,he PV Historical Society, and knows P,ar Pon F1orance,. applicant, on a personal basis Mrs. Wike stated her husband is a member of the Amateur Radio Group in the PV area. Mr. Mc Nulty stated he is a member of the PV Historical Society. Mr. Hodge stated he previously worked for Carriage Realty, owned by Mr. Ron Florance, applicant. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS Tentative Tract Map No. 44514 Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented Lanco Engineering the staff report on Lanco Engineering's Highridge and Armaga Spring request for approval of a 24 acre sub- division on 83 single family residential lots with the recommendation that the Commission continue the public hearing and refer access and traffic flow to the Traffic Committee. 0 - Minutes May 27, 1986 Page 2 9 Staff discussed the primary issues of circulation, historical factors of the site, and grading. In connection with historical factors, staff stated the site is not currently registered as a historical site and the Commission should discuss this issue. Staff noted a waiver related to the time limits for acting on the application has been granted thereby eliminating the necessity for the Commission to vote on the issue. The Commission discussed the proposed development does not provide for vehicle access on to Highridge. Staff responded the proposed traffic access to Armaga Spring is to reduce the traffic volume on Highridge. The Commission stated a 3:1 slope would assist in keeping with the topographical condition of the property and that the proposed terraced pads would violate the General Plan. The Commission mentioned that applicant's proposed plan of children going all the way to Armaga Spring to walk to school seems excessive. The Commission discussed the vacant school site off of Highridge and the agreement between RHE and the school district provides for a park on the site. Staff stated it is uncertain as to RHE plans with regard to dedication of park land where the proposed 72 homes will be built. The Commission discussed the historical significance of the site and the criteria, procedures, time elements, and the Federal/State require- ments related to preserving a historical site. Drainage was reviewed including problems with terraced pads as opposed to natural topography. Staff stated the property would drain properly if it was graded as a terraced project and that the storm drain system in the area was designed with the anticipation of development on the property. And, if the natural terrain concept is utilized, it was noted drainage would run across one lot to another. The Commission discussed terraced pads are designed for maximum utili- zation of property and questioned the possibility of a reduction in the number of buildable lots should the natural terrain concept be utilized. The Commission discussed whether the streets would be public or private. Staff stated public streets would be appropriate and the proposed streets meet the City's minimum street standards. Staff discussed lighting and stated the surrounding areas are overlight in terms of the number of existing standards and suggested the Commission review lighting and make appropriate recommendations to Council. Minutes May 27, 1986 Page 3 The Commission reviewed any potential view impact at 28630 Quailhill (Gray) and staff stated a view analysis at that site will be completed for the next meeting. Geology of the site was discussed and staff stated according to the City Geologist the issues raised are of a minor nature. Chairman Von Hagen opened the public hearing. The following testified on applicant's behalf: Mr. E. Beall 1520 Via Lazo, PVE Architect Mr. R. Florance 1025 Via Mirabel, PVE PVIC Mr. R. Khiabani 1151 Duryea, Irvine 92714 Geo Eng Mr. V. Lewis 4095 La Palma, Anaheim 92807 Trans Eng Mr. M. Nichols 1010 Crenshaw, Torrance 90501 Civil Eng The above interested parties discussed: The architectural and aesthetic aspects of the proposed site. Landscaping was discussed with emphasis on a tropical theme. The possibility of a solid wall along Armaga Spring was introduced. It was noted the community would not be gated. The geology of the site was reviewed and it was stated the site is sound, provided recom- mendations are followed. The slide on the eastern portion was discussed to be outside of the property. It was stated lots would not be lost if the natural terrain concept were used but cross -lot drainage would result. Streets will be public streets. Highridge improvements were noted to im- prove the drainage in the area. The impact of the additional vehicle trips would still allow for a free flow of traffic. The single entry scheme would reduce the number of potential conflicts and the width of the pro- posed single entry is such that there are still encroachable areas within the right-of-way through which emergency vehicles could enter. Placing a plaque in the concrete entrance wall was mentioned as a means of recogniz- ing the historical significance of the site. The possibility of displaying some of the radio equipment along with a video tape at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center or at the City Hall was mentioned and the idea of mov- ing the ranch house there was introduced. The buildings on the proposed site were discussed to be old and incompatible with the type of project applicant is proposing. Rolled curbs were suggested to be more aestheti- cally pleasing than square curbs. The Class I Bikepath on Highridge was mentioned as a good walkway for pedestrians. The liability insurance cov- ering the poles and the building on the proposed site was noted to expire the end of July 1986. The Commission voiced concern over the potential impact of traffic when the proposed development is combined with the proposed 72 units in RHE. The Commission discussed the impact related to vehicles travelling in the area and suggested applicant's transportation engineer consider traffic movement of the Highridge/Armaga Spring and Highridge/Crestridge intersection. The Commission also discussed the number of potential conflicts would be re- duced with the single entry scheme. The Commission discussed the historical significance of the site and the possibility of leaving the ranch house on the property, having a museum on the property, leaving the antennas on the property, and/or moving the ranch house and related equipment/morabilia to the Interpretive Center or the City Hall. 0 Minutes May 27, 1986 Page 4 Interested parties who testified were: 0 Mr.- K.__Dyda_' 5715 Capeswood Historical Society Ms. M. Evans 6217 Lockvale Dr. Mr. D. Gray 28630 Q�da i 1 h 1; 11 Ms. S. Grimes 6 Branding Iron, RHE Ms. E. Herold 6233 Moongate Dr. Mr. J. Holladay 5128 Jessen ARRL La Canada 91011 Mr. J. Locascio 29703 Whitley Collins PV Amateur Radio Club Ms. G. Tilley 29026 Indian Valley Mr. M. Ren 28417 Meadowmist The above interested parties discussed the criteria of age and significance with regard to preserving the site as historical. It was suggested the historical element of an EIR should be reviewed. Preserving a portion of the building and the equipment on part of the site was suggested. The Quimby Act was cited as supporting 1.16 acres being set aside for a -park site. The ARRL stated it could possibly provide some funding forF'­fu__t_u�r­e'_sit_e_ —ma-in'tenance. Preserving the W6AM call sign and establishing it at the Highridge location was suggested. The idea of placing the historical monument on the=TM--.,,-- Cable site across the street from the present site was introduced. Farming on the site was stressed to be of importance and it was suggested a portion of the site be utilized to demonstrate harvesting of crops to school children. The importance of a horse trail connec- tion from S&S Park Estates out and through the property was stressed. Concern over grading and related problems was voiced. The proposed wall along Highridge was stated to be very distracting and aesthetically displeasing. The proposed development standing out from the existing community was emphasized. The proposed landscaping was reviewed and the need for existing palm tree trimming was stressed. Because Highridge is wider than Armaga Spring it was suggested a Highridge entrance be utilized. Concern over view impact at 28630 Quailhill was mentioned. It was also stated that moving the radio equipment to another site would, destroy the effective communications capabilities which have existed over the past 30 years. Upon motion from Mr. Mc Nulty and seconded by Mrs. Wike, the public hearing was continued. The Commission discussed past requests for removal of the poles and wires on the site and the liability insurance covering the poles and building which is to expire the end of July, 1986. The criteria for a State/Federal historical site was reviewed. The difficulty/high cost of maintaining a historical site was emphasized. The Commission questioned if 100% of the Quimby funds are applicable, what portion of the funds are in relationship to the other parks, and whether there would be enough funding for the on-going management/maintenance of the site. • Minutes May 27, 1986 Page 5 The Commi ssi on discussed the focus the historical significance of the the importance of Traffic Committee impact of the proposed development. Ll of an EIR would be to determine site. The Comrri ssi on stated recommendations related to the Staff discussed mi ti gati on measures and stated the Draft Negative Declaration (which would be made final by City Council) should include ways to preserve cultural and historically significant items. Mr. Mc Nulty moved that an EIR related to the issue of the . preservation of the historical significance of the site is appropriate and that the Traffic Committee make appropriate recommendations regarding the project. Mrs. Ortolano seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. INFORMAL HEARINGS— CUP No. 51 Revision Associate Planner Steve Rubin presented Monte Rosa Partnership the staff report on applicant's request PV Drive So and Seawolf to do away with the interim schedule dates and include only a June, 1988 completion date and to change the architectural design of the units with the recom- mendation that the Commission approve the request according to the conditions outlined in the staff report. The Commission discussed adversity to doing away with the interim schedule dates and stated it could allow applicant to slip the whole project. The Commission stated it is impressed with applicant's good faith related to the recreational facilities and voiced concern over applicant not making a sound attempt to complete the project. Mr. Mc Nulty moved to waive the reading of the staff report in the interest of time. The motion was seconded by Mr. Von Hagen and passed unanimously. The Commission discussed the solar panel pool heating requirement and the utilization of a hybrid heating system combined with the use of solar panels. The Commission reviewed the Building & Safety requirements for the mechanical pool cover and the safety grab rails on the pool ladder. The Commission suggested applicant investigate the type of pool covers available. Mr. Nick Lam, 800 So. Brand Blvd., Glendale, 91204, applicant, noted the request for a completion date only and no interim schedule dates is a result of the constant slipping of the schedule. Mr. Lam empha- sized his good intentions for developing the project. He stated that if interim schedule dates are mandatory the completion dates -should be_ slipped as follows: offsite improvement, rec facilities and models -- February 1987; Phase I -- May 1987; Phase II -- December 1987; and Phase III -- July 1988. Minutes May 27, 1986 Page 6 Mr. Mc Nulty moved to approve staff's recommendation including applicant's requested changes to the schedule. The motion died for lack of a second. The Commission further discussed the swimming pool heating/solar panel and noted No. 11, Exhibit A to CUP No. 51, provides for a back up system. Mr. Lee Newman, 31320 Via Colinas, #108, Westlake Village, 91360, Landscape Architect, discussed a study related to the solar panels/club house configuration is currently underway. He stated the number of panels will be relative to the pool size and there will be a back up system. He discussed the panels will be placed on the ground no higher than the windscreen on the tennis court fences. The Commission stated the height of the solar panels should be tied to the height of the windscreen. Mr. Mc Nulty moved to approve staff's recommendation including the changes made to the schedule and that the solar panels will not exceed the height of the windscreen. Mrs. Ortolano seconded and the motion passed unanimously. CONTINUED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ;WORKSHOP Staff discussed the importance of the Commission making recommendations to City Council. Issues presented for discussion were income limit, resale controls, length of owner absence, assets test, windfall profits, and City administration of the program. Staff stated the administration of the program would be covered by the program which includes money set aside for that purpose. The Commission discussed criteria which would satisfy the State agency. The median income level of $38,000 and sales prices of $114,000 (3 X $38,000) were reviewed. Staff stated that costs associated with the $114,000 units (such as plan check fees, building permits, environmental excise tax, and Quimby) would bring the selling prices up to $120,000. The Commission discussed the possibility of reducing the number of affordable units to 11. The Commission reviewed using a $50,000 median income and a sales price of $150,000 (3 X $50,000) and voiced concern over $150,000 not seeming affordable. Mr. Fred Talarico, 359 San Miguel Drive, Ste 200, Newport Beach, Sanchez, Talarico & Associates, discussed mayor issues in the Newport Beach affordable housing lawsuit. Mr. Talarico indicated the pro3ect has a very low density for affordable housing. Also, Mr. Talarico discussed the Newport Beach lawsuit charges Newport Beach with systematic exclusion as opposed to choosing one number over another. • Minutes May 27, 1986 Page---___ C Mr. Howard Adler, 2081 Business Center Drive, Irvine, 92715, applicant, discussed difficulties with low density and low selling prices being an unrealistic approach and emphasized the project cannot be constructed under such conditions. The Commission discussed the problem of substandard units when the resale controls end. The Commission also discussed the possibility of applicant donating units (4-6) to the City with the City making units available on an affordable housing basis. The Commission further discussed applicant's inability to go below $150,000 sales price. The Commission recommended the income level of $50,000 and a sales price of $150,000. The Commission discussed a 15 year resale control period and a 20-30 year resale period. Staff noted it seems the longer the controls last the less effective they become. The=Comma_ssian, stated the loncrPr_ the-rc,ntrels—last—the bet er-chance of - not being confronted with another affordable housing situation. Mr. Mc Nulty moved that the recommendations to City�Council� and the number of affordable units is so insignificant as to be inappropriate to be any attempt to be affordable housing and no affordable housing should be implemented in this project. Mr_ Hodge seconded the motion. The motion was defeated 3-2 with Mrs. Ortolano, Mr. Von Hagen, and Mrs. Wike dissenting. The Commission discussed that a 30 year resale period should erase any concern over windfall profits. The Commission recommended a 30 year resale control period. The Commission recommended an owner may not be absent longer than 6 consecutive months. The Commission recommended a statement of assets under penalty of perjury be furnished. Windfall profits were discussed and the concern over windfall profits being eliminated via the 30 year resale control period was noted. Staff related the City Attorney's opinion that a portion of windfall profits going to the City would be legal if the money was designated for housing programs. Since this idea has not previously been imple- mented staff discussed the suggestion of 50-75a is arbitrary. Minutes May 27, 1986 Page 8 The Commission discussed linking equity invested to the cost of living index and problems with taking more than 50%. The Commission also discussed problems with selling the units when a large portion of the profits goes back to the City. `:.'he Commission recommended 50% as a reasonable figure for windfall profits. The Commission recommended the City staff administer the program. Mr. Von Hagen moved that the staff recommendations with the changes made by the Commission be forwarded to the City Council as a Planning Commission recommendation for affordable housing criteria in the event the Council determines that an affordable housing project is appropriate for the 49 unit Golden Cove project. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed by majority with Mr. Hodge and Mrs. Ortolano dissenting. Mrs. Ortolano stated her support of all items except the median income level which shef`eels should be less than $50,000. Mr. Hodge stated his support for all items except the windfall profits since he does not agree with windfall profits. AUDIENCE QUESTIONS (Regarding Non -Agenda Items) Sunshine, 6 Limetree Lane, representing the PVPHA, requested the Commission consider an amendment recommendation to the City Council that, in Forestal Tract 37885, trails be included according to the Trails Network Plan. Staff stated the proper procedure would be for Council to refer the TTM 37885 back to the Commission so the Commission could hold another public hearing. The Commission voiced adversity to reconsidering the item. Staff stated the language of the motion was that the Trails Standard-, of the Plan be met and that the trail referred to is in the Trails Network Plan but not in the Trails Standards Study. The Commission discussed that if the area in question is in the Trails Plan it should be implemented but that it was not included in the Commission recommendation because there is no place for the trail to go. The Commission suggested concerned parties further discuss the item with City Council. Minutes May 27, 1986 Page 9, - REPORTS STAFF Staff stated minutes will,be'-provided for approval at the June 10, 1986 meeting. COMMISSION None ADJOURNMENT Mr. Mc Nulty moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:25/AM, seconded by Mrs. Wike and passed unanimously.